Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if itis queued

[Linus Torvalds]

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.

		Linus
--
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/