On 11/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:13:29AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > A single parent process for all usermode helpers makes so much sense; > > > not doing it is just weird. > > > > If we're gonna allow userland to play with the parent attributes, > > yeah, that'd make sense. I'm not sure whether that's an interface > > that we'd want to commit to tho? Do we really want to tell userland > > "there will always be a kernel task khelper and if you change that > > one's attributes all processes forked from it will inherit those > > attributes no matter what they are." I think we'd want something more > > specific cause that's a lot of commitment to things that we haven't > > carefully thought about. > > It seems like a perfectly fine interface to me. And much preferable to > creating yet another weird interface to manage tasks.
OK. I am not sure, but perhaps this makes sense. (Although this means that we will always have the problem with the recursive UMH_WAIT_* requests). In this case khelper should be turned into kthread_worker, this looks simple. But note that in the longer term we might want even more. We probably want a non-daemonized thread controlled by the user-space. And even more, this thread should be per-namespace (this needs a lot more discussion). But whataver we do later, I believe that the patch from Zhang should be applied now. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
