Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if itis queued
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 14:51:56 EST
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Just properly removing the sigqueue entry and fixing the pending set is
> looking pretty good. Why was it we didn't do that?
I thought we didn't even know which queue it was pending on if it was
already on a thread-local queue. So we could remove the entry, but I
always objected to the games with the pending bit.
Just removing the entry I'm ok with, it was the (pointless and misleading)
use of recalc_sigpending() that started the whole discussion. The fact
that we then also have that "which signal is pending" bit in front of the
queue was something that came up later.
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/