From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756232AbZHQTgD (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:36:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754831AbZHQTgB (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:36:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40650 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750703AbZHQTgA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:36:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Oleg Nesterov X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending In-Reply-To: Oleg Nesterov's message of Monday, 17 August 2009 18:31:26 +0200 <20090817163126.GA14581@redhat.com> References: <20090815003250.8101E40595@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090817163126.GA14581@redhat.com> X-Zippy-Says: PEGGY FLEMING is stealing BASKET BALLS to feed the babies in VERMONT. Message-Id: <20090817193549.CE7514730F@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > In fact, I think we do not need 2 helpers. I mean, fatal_signal_pending() > does not need the signal_pending() check, we can just rename > __fatal_signal_pending() to fatal_signal_pending(). Should be another > change of course. Right, I thought of that too. I wasn't entirely sure that signal_pending() vs test_tsk_thread_flag() doesn't have some important barrier-like ordering effect that just the unlocked sigismember() check wouldn't have. But if not, fatal_signal_pending() indeed really only needs to be that one instruction. Thanks, Roland