[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2FU55-7wQnLXDAmRCgiZ-W+2rY6p7CrTiKNe0wda-Hsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:45:27 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: fix building with clang
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:46 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > We could use % everywhere,
>
> Yes.
>
> But again, why not simply use the "for (;;)" loops? Why we can't kill the
> supid switch(_NSIG_WORDS) tricks altogether?
I'd have to try, but I think you are right. It was probably an
overoptimization back in 1997 when the code got added to
linux-2.1.68pre1, and compilers have become smarter in the
meantime ;-)
Also, the common case these days is _NSIG_WORDS==1, which
is true on all 64-bit architectures other than MIPS64.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists