Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> In fact, I think we do not need 2 helpers. I mean, fatal_signal_pending()
> does not need the signal_pending() check, we can just rename
> __fatal_signal_pending() to fatal_signal_pending(). Should be another
> change of course.

Right, I thought of that too.  I wasn't entirely sure that signal_pending()
vs test_tsk_thread_flag() doesn't have some important barrier-like ordering
effect that just the unlocked sigismember() check wouldn't have.  But if not,
fatal_signal_pending() indeed really only needs to be that one instruction.


Thanks,
Roland