[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1207757653.27048.77.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:14:13 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] set_restore_sigmask TIF_SIGPENDING
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> As I see it, the main disadvantage of ERESTART_ approach is that we need 2
> new ERESTART_ codes, one for ERESTARTNOHAND, another for ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK.
> And yes, while I personally think this is "more clean", it is very subjective.
Subjective, yeah.... personally, I don't like using ERESTART_xxx much,
because you're _not_ necessarily restarting the system call. The
separate flag for TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK (or TLF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) seems
cleaner to me -- especially once you observe that you need new codes for
ERESTART_xxx_AND_RESTORE_SIGMASK for each ERESTART_xxx that you might
want to use in conjunction with the flags.
But I don't really care much either, if you want to change it and get
the details right.
One of the supposed advantages of TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the first
place, iirc, was that it allowed us to return a result code other than
-EINTR as _well_ as restoring the signal mask. But we don't actually
make use of that possibility now anyway.
--
dwmw2
--
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