Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:40:17 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] introduce sig_needs_tasklist() helper |
| |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:25:25PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:12:04PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > +#define sig_needs_tasklist(sig) \ > > > + (((sig) < SIGRTMIN) && T(sig, SIG_KERNEL_STOP_MASK | M(SIGCONT))) > > > + > > > > Seems to me to be an improvement, but why not also encapsulate the > > lock acquisition, something like: > > > > static inline int sig_tasklist_lock(int sig) > > { > > if (unlikely(sig_needs_tasklist(sig)) { > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > > return 1; > > } > > return 0; > > } > > > > static inline void sig_tasklist_unlock(int acquired_tasklist_lock) > > { > > if (acquired_tasklist_lock) > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > } > > I hope we will have > > #define sig_needs_tasklist(sig) (sig == SIGCONT) > > really soon (I planned to submit the final bits today, but > for some stupid reasons I can't do anything till weekend), > so I think it's better to kill 'acquired_tasklist_lock' and > just do: > > void sig_tasklist_lock(sig) > { > if (sig_needs_tasklist(sig)) > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > } > > void sig_tasklist_unlock(sig) > { > if (sig_needs_tasklist(sig)); > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > }
Even better!
Thanx, Paul - 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/
| |