"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> The following patch combines a bit of redundant code between
> force_sig_info() and force_sig_specific(). Tested on x86 and ppc64.
Some minor nitpicks ...
> +++ linux-2.6.14-rc2-rt7-force_sig/kernel/signal.c 2005-09-29 18:41:07.000000000 -0700
> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *
> if (sigismember(&t->blocked, sig) || t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) {
> t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
May be it would be more readable to do:
if (handler == SIG_IGN)
handler = SIG_DFL;
if (sigismember(->blocked, sig)) // probably unneeded at all
sigdelset(->blocked, sig);
> - recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
> }
> + recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
I never understood why can't we just do:
set_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
If this signal is not pending yet specific_send_siginfo() will
set this flag anyway.
> - specific_send_sig_info(sig, (void *)2, t);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + force_sig_info(sig, (void *)2, t);
Paul, if you think this patch should go into the -mm tree first,
could you rediff this patch against -mm ?
- specific_send_sig_info(sig, SEND_SIG_FORCED, t);
+ force_sig_info(sig, SEND_SIG_FORCED, t);
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
