[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101220162120.GA15755@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:21:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] signal: prepare for CLD_* notification changes
On 12/06, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk, int why)
> {
> struct siginfo info;
> unsigned long flags;
> struct task_struct *parent;
> struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> + struct signal_struct *sig;
> + int notify = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * Determine whether and what to notify. This should be done under
> + * @tsk's siglock.
Hmm... it is not clear why.
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags);
>
> + switch (why) {
> + case CLD_CONTINUED:
> + case CLD_STOPPED:
> + case CLD_TRAPPED:
> + notify = why;
> + break;
> + }
OK, with the next patches this code checks sig->flags, probably that
is why we take ->siglock. Still I can't understand this so far.
May be the comment could tell more?
> @@ -1640,6 +1684,7 @@ static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk, int why)
> }
>
> sighand = parent->sighand;
> + sig = parent->signal;
This looks unneeded.
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