Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:43:25 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] do_sigaction: don't worry about signal_pending()
Message-ID: <20070822094325.GF1684@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070820160157.GA1279@tv-sign.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 807
Lines: 19

On 20-08-2007 18:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> do_sigaction() returns -ERESTARTNOINTR if signal_pending(). The comment says:
> 
> 	* If there might be a fatal signal pending on multiple
> 	* threads, make sure we take it before changing the action.
> 	
> I think this is not needed. We should only worry about SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT case,
> bit it implies a pending SIGKILL which can't be cleared by do_sigaction.

Isn't it for optimization e.g., to skip this 'do while' loop below for
such multiple threads, which would get SIGKILL or SIGSTOP anyway?

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
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/