[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimD2zfLoYrXARs2dNHq7XEjpuVgCxEXEp-qm2Go@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:33:08 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: annotate siglock acquisition
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 18:42, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le samedi 25 septembre 2010 à 18:21 +0900, Namhyung Kim a écrit :
>> @@ -1403,7 +1404,9 @@ int send_sigqueue(struct sigqueue *q, struct task_struct *t, int group)
>> BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC));
>>
>> ret = -1;
>> - if (!likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
>> + if (likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
>> + __acquire(&t->sighand->siglock);
>> + else
>> goto ret;
>>
>> ret = 1; /* the signal is ignored */
>
> making sparse happy is good, but changing a likely clause is not,
> unless you meant it ;)
>
> maybe -->
>
> if (!likely(lock_task_sighand(t, &flags)))
> goto ret;
> else
> __acquire(&t->sighand->siglock);
>
>
>
>
What's the difference? I didn't change the semantics of likely clause
but simply exchange the order of then-else part because IMHO a
negative expression make it hard to understand, generally.
I've checked compiled binaries for both cases on x86 and they
produced exactly same code.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Namhyung Kim
--
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