Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending

From: Roland McGrath
Date: Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:36:08 EST


> 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
--
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/