From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030787AbXCTA0A (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:26:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030790AbXCTAZ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:25:59 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:51021 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030787AbXCTAZ7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:25:59 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:24:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Oleg Nesterov cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [patch 2/13] signal/timer/event fds v7 - signalfd core ... In-Reply-To: <20070320002205.GA338@tv-sign.ru> Message-ID: References: <20070320002205.GA338@tv-sign.ru> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > +static void signalfd_unlock(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx, > > + struct signalfd_lockctx *lk) > > +{ > > + unlock_task_sighand(lk->tsk, &lk->flags); > > +} > > Again, this is a matter of taste. But I can't understand why signalfd_unlock() > needs "signalfd_ctx *ctx" parameter. If we have "struct signalfd_lockctx *lk", > signalfd_lock() can setup lk->ctx if it is ever needed. With the new API, I agree. Removed. - Davide