[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080312222823.GA131@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:28:23 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] signals: fold sig_ignored() into handle_stop_signal()
On 03/12, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This one looks fine to me. I would like the comment above the function to
> be updated to describe its new purpose, and to document its return value's
> meaning.
Will do.
> Also, I'm not sure if there is a kernel code formatting convention that
> particularly excludes an empty block ({}, equiv to ;) containing just
> comments. But I don't recall seeing that style used in the kernel.
> (I don't mind it personally for this case given what the obvious
> alternatives would look like.)
Yes, this looks a bit unusual... but I can't see how it is possible to
make it simpler (without goto's or duplication the code).
> > A couple of small comments about how CLD_CONTINUED notification works.
>
> I would make the get_signal_to_deliver comment say a
> little more. In particular, it's kind of nonobvious that though this
> happens at the beginning of the function, the importance of its placement
> is really that it will always be run (via the relock: loop) just after any
> wake-up from having been in TASK_STOPPED.
Will do, thanks.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists