Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

[Jens Axboe]

On 10/13/20 5:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jens,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13 2020 at 13:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>> I'm continuing to hone the series, what's really missing so far is arch
>> review. Most conversions are straight forward, some I need folks to
>> definitely take a look at (arm, s390). powerpc is also a bit hair right
>> now, but I'm told that 5.10 will kill a TIF flag there, so that'll make
>> it trivial once I rebase on that.
> 
> can you pretty please not add that to anything which is not going
> through kernel/entry/ ?

Certainly, tif-task_work is just a holding ground for all of it so
far. Once the core bits are agreed upon and merged, then I'll bounce
the rest through the arch maintainers. So please don't view it as
on cohesive series, it only is up until (and including):

commit 8dc14b576a9bf13dba4993e4ddb4068d39dee1e9
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Oct 1 13:29:21 2020 -0600

    task_work: use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available


> The amount of duplicated and differently buggy, inconsistent and
> incomplete code in syscall and exception handling is just annoying.
> 
> It's perfectly fine if we keep that #ifdeffery around for a while and
> encourage arch folks to move over to the generic infrastructure instead
> of proliferating the status quo by adding this to their existing pile.

Agree

> The #ifdef guarding this in set_notify_signal() and other core code
> places wants to be:
> 
>     #if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY) && defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)

OK no problem, I'll fix that up.

-- 
Jens Axboe