From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:40:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] set_restore_sigmask TIF_SIGPENDING Message-Id: <1207766433.27048.86.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> <1207757653.27048.77.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080409162206.GA764@tv-sign.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080409162206.GA764@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 20:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/09, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > 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. > > Agreed, good point. ERESTART_ is not that flexible. > > Somehow I assumed we will never need something "special" here, this is > not very clever. Well, it's not clear that we _will_ need it to be so special. You could perhaps argue that it's overengineering. It's just that at the time I did it, I _thought_ I'd need it for ppoll(). It's only in later optimisations that I realised we only ever really needed to use TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the case where ppoll() or pselect() was interrupted. -- dwmw2