Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Roland McGrath <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:35:49 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
> In fact, I think we do not need 2 helpers. I mean, fatal_signal_pending() > does not need the signal_pending() check, we can just rename > __fatal_signal_pending() to fatal_signal_pending(). Should be another > change of course.
Right, I thought of that too. I wasn't entirely sure that signal_pending() vs test_tsk_thread_flag() doesn't have some important barrier-like ordering effect that just the unlocked sigismember() check wouldn't have. But if not, fatal_signal_pending() indeed really only needs to be that one instruction.
Thanks, Roland
|  |