Re: [PATCH v2 10/17] signal: make has_pending_signals() return bool

[Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:16:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/01, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > has_pending_signals() already behaves like a boolean function. Let's
> > actually declare it as such too.
> 
> But this patch does more.
> 
> > -	case 4: ready  = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
> > -		ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
> > -		ready |= signal->sig[1] &~ blocked->sig[1];
> > -		ready |= signal->sig[0] &~ blocked->sig[0];
> > +	case 4:
> > +		ready = signal->sig[3] & ~blocked->sig[3];
> > +		ready |= signal->sig[2] & ~blocked->sig[2];
> > +		ready |= signal->sig[1] & ~blocked->sig[1];
> > +		ready |= signal->sig[0] & ~blocked->sig[0];
> >  		break;
> 
> Again, personally I do not care at all. But why do you think the code looks
> better after re-formatting? This is subjective, but to me it does not.
> 
> In particular, note the extra space before "=" removed by this patch. I guess
> it was added on purpose, and to me
> 
> 	ready  = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
> 	ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
> 
> actually looks better thab
> 
> 	ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3];
> 	ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2];
> 
> after your patch.

I can drop the changes in v3.

Thanks!
Christian

> 
> Oleg.
>