> This is microoptimization, both ->signal and ->sighand are cleared at the same
> time in __exit_signal(), so we can check either. But we are using the value of
> ->sighand below, so it makes sense to read ->sighand, not ->signal.
Ok. Anality would suggest doing that in a separate patch, though I don't
really care.
> Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it
> possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree?
I'd prefer a comment in the code there making it explicit that ->sighand is
a "reaped yet" synchronization check (under tasklist_lock).
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/
[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]
