[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130625204447.GA17001@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:44:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] signals: eventpoll: set ->saved_sigmask at the
start
On 06/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/25, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:57:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > + if (error == -EINTR)
> > > set_restore_sigmask();
> > > - } else
> > > - set_current_blocked(&sigsaved);
> > > + else
> > > + __set_current_blocked(¤t->saved_sigmask);
> >
> > I don't like that. If anything, we have
> > static inline void restore_saved_sigmask(void)
> > {
> > if (test_and_clear_restore_sigmask())
> > __set_current_blocked(¤t->saved_sigmask);
> > }
> > which means that the last part can be turned into
> > set_restore_sigmask();
> > if (error != -EINTR)
> > restore_saved_sigmask();
>
> set_restore_sigmask() does WARN_ON(!TIF_SIGPENDING).
But if we remove this WARN_ON() we can probably change
set_restore_sigmask() to set TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK and
do saved_mask = blocked.
Perhaps it can even acccept "sigset_t *newmask" and do
set_current_blocked().
Then we can move it up and change the code above to simply as you
suggested. But imho this needs a separate change.
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