Re: [PATCH 1/2] signals: fold sig_ignored() into handle_stop_signal()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/12, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This one looks fine to me.  I would like the comment above the function to
> be updated to describe its new purpose, and to document its return value's
> meaning.

Will do.

> Also, I'm not sure if there is a kernel code formatting convention that
> particularly excludes an empty block ({}, equiv to ;) containing just
> comments.  But I don't recall seeing that style used in the kernel.
> (I don't mind it personally for this case given what the obvious
> alternatives would look like.)

Yes, this looks a bit unusual... but I can't see how it is possible to
make it simpler (without goto's or duplication the code).

> > A couple of small comments about how CLD_CONTINUED notification works.
>
> I would make the get_signal_to_deliver comment say a
> little more.  In particular, it's kind of nonobvious that though this
> happens at the beginning of the function, the importance of its placement
> is really that it will always be run (via the relock: loop) just after any
> wake-up from having been in TASK_STOPPED.

Will do, thanks.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/