From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:14:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] set_restore_sigmask TIF_SIGPENDING Message-Id: <1207757653.27048.77.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> List-Id: References: <20080329001230.D013726FA1D@magilla.localdomain> <20080329001341.7F93826FA1D@magilla.localdomain> <20080408113519.GA227@tv-sign.ru> <1207739787.27048.57.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080409113939.GA99@tv-sign.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080409113939.GA99@tv-sign.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Linus Torvalds , Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > As I see it, the main disadvantage of ERESTART_ approach is that we need 2 > new ERESTART_ codes, one for ERESTARTNOHAND, another for ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK. > And yes, while I personally think this is "more clean", it is very subjective. Subjective, yeah.... personally, I don't like using ERESTART_xxx much, because you're _not_ necessarily restarting the system call. The separate flag for TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK (or TLF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) seems cleaner to me -- especially once you observe that you need new codes for ERESTART_xxx_AND_RESTORE_SIGMASK for each ERESTART_xxx that you might want to use in conjunction with the flags. But I don't really care much either, if you want to change it and get the details right. One of the supposed advantages of TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the first place, iirc, was that it allowed us to return a result code other than -EINTR as _well_ as restoring the signal mask. But we don't actually make use of that possibility now anyway. -- dwmw2