[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending()
> +               sigemptyset(&new_full_set);
> + if (how == SIG_SETMASK)
> + new_full_set = current->blocked;
> + new_full_set.sig[0] = new_set;

Ugh. This is just ugly.

Could we not instead turn the whole thing into a "clear these bits"
and "set these bits", and get rid of the "how" entirely for the helper

IOW, we'd have

switch (how) {
clear_bits = 0;
set_bits = new_set;
clear_bits = new_set;
set_bits = 0;
case SIG_SET:
clear_bits = low_bits;
set_bits = new_set;
return -EINVAL;

and notice how you now can do that helper function *WITHOUT* any
conditionals, and just make it do

sigprocmask(&clear, &set, NULL);

which handles all cases correctly (just "andn clear" + "or set") with
no if's or switch'es.

This is why I _detest_ that idiotic "sigprocmask()" interface. That
"how" parameter is the invention of somebody who didn't understand
sets. It's stupid. There is no reason to have multiple different set
operations, when in practice all anybody ever wants is the "clear
these bits and set those other bits" - an operation that is not only
more generic than the idiotic "how", but is _faster_ too, because it
involves no conditionals.

So I realize that we cannot get away from the broken user interface,
but I do not believe that that means that our _internal_ helper
functions should use that idiotic and broken interface!

I had basically this same comment earlier when you did something
similarly mindless for another case.

So basic rule should be: if you ever pass "how" to any helper
functions, it's broken.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-26 23:45    [W:0.097 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site