lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch V2 25/50] signal: Confine POSIX_TIMERS properly
On 04/11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Move the itimer rearming out of the signal code and consolidate all posix
> timer related functions in the signal code under one ifdef.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
> include/linux/posix-timers.h | 5 +
> kernel/signal.c | 125 +++++++++++++++----------------------------
> kernel/time/itimer.c | 22 +++++++
> kernel/time/posix-timers.c | 15 ++++-
> 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>


A minor nit below...

> --- a/include/linux/posix-timers.h
> +++ b/include/linux/posix-timers.h
..
> +static inline void posixtimer_rearm_itimer(struct task_struct *p) { }
> +static inline void posixtimer_rearm(struct kernel_siginfo *info) { }

Do we really need these 2 nops ? please see below.

..

> + if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM))
> + posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk);

..

> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) {
> + if (unlikely(resched_timer))
> + posixtimer_rearm(info);
> }

This looks a bit inconsistent to me.

Can't we change the callsite of posixtimer_rearm_itimer() to check
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS) too,

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) {
if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM))
posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk);
}
?

This will make the code more symmetrical, and we can avoid the dumb
definitions of posixtimer_rearm_itimer/posixtimer_rearm.

Oleg.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-04-18 17:24    [W:0.601 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site