[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805211146350.3081@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Austin Clements <amdragon+kernelbugzilla@....edu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if it
is queued
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Just properly removing the sigqueue entry and fixing the pending set is
> looking pretty good. Why was it we didn't do that?
I thought we didn't even know which queue it was pending on if it was
already on a thread-local queue. So we could remove the entry, but I
always objected to the games with the pending bit.
Just removing the entry I'm ok with, it was the (pointless and misleading)
use of recalc_sigpending() that started the whole discussion. The fact
that we then also have that "which signal is pending" bit in front of the
queue was something that came up later.
Linus
--
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