[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110713102520.0065c7de@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:25:20 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: do_signal: simplify the TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK logic
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:22:03 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> 1. do_signal() looks at TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK and calculates the
> mask which should be stored in the signal frame, then it
> passes "oldset" to the callees, down to setup_rt_frame().
>
> This is ugly, setup_rt_frame() can do this itself and nobody
> else needs this sigset_t. Move this code into setup_rt_frame.
>
> 2. do_signal() also clears TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK if handle_signal()
> succeeds.
>
> We can move this to setup_rt_frame() as well, this avoids the
> unnecessary checks and makes the logic more clear.
>
> 3. use set_current_blocked() instead of sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK),
> sigprocmask() should be avoided.
Could you please mention commit e6fa16ab "signal: sigprocmask() should
do retarget_shared_pending()", since it's not immediately obvious in
this changelog why sigprocmask() should be avoided.
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com>
--
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