Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Frysinger <> | Date | Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:31:50 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 07/43] blackfin: Use set_current_blocked() and block_sigmask() |
| |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 04:36, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 00:00 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:46, Matt Fleming wrote: >> > --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/signal.c >> > +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/signal.c >> > - if (ret == 0) { >> > - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); >> > - sigorsets(¤t->blocked, ¤t->blocked, >> > - &ka->sa.sa_mask); >> > - if (!(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) >> > - sigaddset(¤t->blocked, sig); >> > - recalc_sigpending(); >> > - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); >> > - } >> > + if (ret == 0) >> > + block_sigmask(ka, sig); >> >> the Blackfin version holds siglock and calls recalc_sigpending() while >> block_sigmask() does neither. i'm guessing that is expected behavior >> now ? > > Yah, set_current_blocked() inside of block_sigmask() still grabs siglock > and calls recalc_sigpending() for you. Reading current->blocked inside > of block_sigmask() is fine and the sigorsets() is OK because we're > modifying a stack variable, so only grabbing the lock inside of > set_current_blocked() is safe.
thanks for clearing that up (and the code itself!).
Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> -mike -- 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/
| |