[PATCH] simplify do_signal_stop() && utrace_report_jctl() interaction

[Roland McGrath]

> Ah. I forgot signals-tracehook_notify_jctl-change.patch is still pending in
> -mm.

Perhaps we should just rejigger all these together into one new patch (or
two, whatever) before akpm submits any of them.

> Or you can just merge these 2 patches, perhaps this would be better.

As long as we have akpm drop/update the any conflicting ones, sure.

> > The signal.c change should go upstream ASAP, and that patch should also
> > include a change to the tracehook_notify_jctl kerneldoc so that it is
> > accurate about the locking et al.
> 
> Confused, signals-tracehook_notify_jctl-change.patch already updated the
> comment?

I was looking at the Linus tree, not the -mm tree (I always do).
If that prerequisite patch (or merged rejiggered patch or whatever)
updates the comments that is fine.  I was also just noticing the other
callers of tracehook_notify_jctl, which should all be rejiggered as makes
most sense for the locking change (maybe that pending patch already did that).

> > This warrants a comment here about the first if.  The only reason it is
> > there is that tracehook_notify_jctl is allowed to drop and reacquire the
> > siglock,
> 
> and SIGCONT may come in between,

Right, or the various other things (SIGKILL, etc.).


Thanks,
Roland