[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110426114028.74c5a8a1@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:40:28 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needs
retarget_shared_pending()
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:07:38 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 04/25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 06:01:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, I can rename... Cough, but in this case please simply suggest
> > > another name. set_tsk_blocked_locked?
> >
> > Oooh, blocked_locked, didn't see that one coming. Maybe
> > set_tsk_sigmask()
>
> but it is not _tsk, it is specially named set_current_blocked() to
> show that it only applies to current. And _blocked clearly shows what
> it should change, like set_current_state().
>
> OK, this is purely cosmetic, and __set_tsk_blocked() is static and has
> a single caller. Can we keep this naming for now? it would be trivial
> to rename later.
It might be worth adding a comment to __set_tsk_blocked() saying that
it expects to be called with ->siglock held.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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