Re: [PATCH] signals: send_signal: be paranoid about signalfd_notify()

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> send_signal() shouldn't call signalfd_notify() if it then fails with -EAGAIN.
> Harmless, just a paranoid cleanup.
> 
> Also remove the comment. It is obsolete, signalfd_notify() was simplified and
> does a simple wakeup.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>

Looks fine to me.

Acked-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>



> 
> --- 25/kernel/signal.c~3_SS_NOTIFY	2008-03-12 15:16:52.000000000 +0300
> +++ 25/kernel/signal.c	2008-03-12 15:55:47.000000000 +0300
> @@ -769,13 +769,6 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct s
>  	 */
>  	if (legacy_queue(pending, sig))
>  		return 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Deliver the signal to listening signalfds. This must be called
> -	 * with the sighand lock held.
> -	 */
> -	signalfd_notify(t, sig);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * fast-pathed signals for kernel-internal things like SIGSTOP
>  	 * or SIGKILL.
> @@ -825,6 +818,7 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct s
>  	}
>  
>  out_set:
> +	signalfd_notify(t, sig);
>  	sigaddset(&pending->signal, sig);
>  	complete_signal(sig, t, group);
>  	return 0;
> 


- Davide