Re: recalc_sigpending() / recalc_sigpending_tsk() ?

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

torvalds@transmeta.com said:
>  Not a chance in hell. The backwards compatibility looks like a
> trivial one-liner:

>    compat-2.4.h:
> 	#define recalc_sigpending() recalc_sigpending(current)

> so what are you complaining about? 

It may be possible, but it's not a trivial one-liner. Am I missing 
something obvious? Other than the fact that you don't care, of course.

background.c: In function `jffs2_garbage_collect_thread':
background.c:116: warning: implicit declaration of function `recalc_sigpending'

$ grep recalc_sigpending background.i 
#define __ver_recalc_sigpending _ver_str(6682695c)
#define recalc_sigpending _set_ver(recalc_sigpending)
static inline void recalc_sigpending_Rsmp_6682695c(struct task_struct *t)
#define recalc_sigpending() recalc_sigpending(current)
                recalc_sigpending(get_current());
                recalc_sigpending(get_current());


I appreciate that the old recalc_sigpending(task) needed to stop working, 
to force people to stop doing recalc_sigpending(current). How about 
recalc_sigpending_cur() and recalc_sigpending_tsk() then?

--
dwmw2