[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1207766433.27048.86.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:40:33 +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 20:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/09, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, good point. ERESTART_ is not that flexible.
>
> Somehow I assumed we will never need something "special" here, this is
> not very clever.
Well, it's not clear that we _will_ need it to be so special. You could
perhaps argue that it's overengineering. It's just that at the time I
did it, I _thought_ I'd need it for ppoll().
It's only in later optimisations that I realised we only ever really
needed to use TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the case where ppoll() or pselect()
was interrupted.
--
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