On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com> writes:
[...] > > Should si_code simply be ignored for the SIGKILL case? > > I know what x86 does in a similar case is it uses force_sig instead of > force_sig_info. Then the generic code gets to worry about > > If the appropriate paths generic paths get to worry about what siginfo > to fill in in that case. Which for SI_KERNEL is zero for everything > except the si_code and the si_signo. > > That seems perfectly reasonable. OK, I'll go with SI_KERNEL then. Cheers ---Dave
