On 8 July 2026 15:14:23 BST, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: >On 07/08, Georgia Garcia wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2026-07-05 at 20:48 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> > On 07/05, Bradley Morgan wrote: >> > > >> > > > SEND_SIG_NOINFO is defined as ((struct kernel_siginfo *) 0), so >passing >> > > > NULL works, but: >> > > > >> > > > - this works "by accident" and looks as if the caller doesn't >understand >> > > > the signal sending API. >> > > > >> > > > - more importantly, this hides the usage of SEND_SIG_NOINFO from >grep, >> > > > and this is really bad. >> > > - also drop the now redundant (void) >> > >> > Yes, but the "void" cast was never necessary, I guess. >> > >> > and just in case... To me the usage of SEND_SIG_NOINFO here doesn't >look right with >> > or without this change. Perhaps I am wrong, but please lets not >discuss this right >> > now, this connects to other cleanups I have in mind. >> > >> >> Yes, I agree. Perhaps SEND_SIG_PRIV would be more appropriate here. >
Nice! thank you! >Yes, this is what I meant. And I think the same is true for most of (all?) >users of send_sig(sig, task, priv = 0), at least when task is current. >I'll return to this later. > >Thanks for your ACK! > >Oleg. > > Thanks!
