Re: [PATCH] de_thread: eliminate unneccessary sighand locking

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> the amount of potentially affected code (assuming all the locking is 
> done in a single .[ch] file)

I'm not sure what that means.  I'm not confident that all relevant locking
code is always in one file.  If you mean that you did as I said, checked
every use of siglock and confirmed that tasklist_lock is held before
examining ->sighand, then we are good.

> this reminds me about the patch below: it gets rid of tasklist_lock use 
> in the POSIX timer signal delivery critical path.

I don't see how that works at all.  The thought that it would seems to
contradict what we've just been discussing.  Holding tasklist_lock is what
protects against ->sighand and ->signal changing and the old pointers
becoming stale, not task_lock.  What am I missing here?



Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/