Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:54:55 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Zhaolei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork.c: cleanup for copy_sighand()
Message-Id: <20081104155455.f0b0e5b1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <490AC707.1060808@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <490AC707.1060808@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1270
Lines: 38

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:51:19 +0800
Zhaolei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Check CLONE_SIGHAND only is enough, because combination of CLONE_THREAD and
> CLONE_SIGHAND is already done in copy_process().
> 
> Impact: cleanup, no functionality changed
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  kernel/fork.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index f608356..36a0dac 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ static int copy_sighand(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {
>  	struct sighand_struct *sig;
>  
> -	if (clone_flags & (CLONE_SIGHAND | CLONE_THREAD)) {
> +	if (clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) {
>  		atomic_inc(&current->sighand->count);
>  		return 0;
>  	}

OK, it appears to be correct and might yield a tiny speedup on some
architectures.

But whether this change is desirable from a clarity and maintainability
point of view is unclear to me.  Let's add the cc's..

--
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/