lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending
Date
> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-17 21:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans