Re: [PATCH] recalc_sigpending_tsk fixes

> We already discussed this, this is not so important, but how about
> 
> 	void recalc_sigpending_and_wake(struct task_struct *t)
> 	{
> 		int was_pending = signal_pending(t);
> 
> 		if (recalc_sigpending_tsk(t) && !was_pending)
> 			signal_wake_up(t, 0);
> 	}
> 
> ?
> 
> This "was_pending" is more a documenation than a optimization.

I don't object, but I think another comment about the wakeup being
sometimes superfluous is enough, if anything.  


Thanks,
Roland
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] recalc_sigpending_tsk fixes
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.22-rc1 does not boot on VIA C3_2 cause of X86_CMPXCHG64
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] recalc_sigpending_tsk fixes
• Next by thread: [PATCH] AFS: Write back dirty data on unmount
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]