linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@mvista.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending()
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:43:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinp8FGQu2D1NVVc7xfEsqopook7Hg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110426195002.GF8520@redhat.com>

> +               sigemptyset(&new_full_set);
> +               if (how == SIG_SETMASK)
> +                       new_full_set = current->blocked;
> +               new_full_set.sig[0] = new_set;

Ugh. This is just ugly.

Could we not instead turn the whole thing into a "clear these bits"
and "set these bits", and get rid of the "how" entirely for the helper
function?

IOW, we'd have

  switch (how) {
  case SIG_BLOCK:
      clear_bits = 0;
      set_bits = new_set;
      break;
  case SIG_UNBLOCK:
      clear_bits = new_set;
      set_bits = 0;
      break
  case SIG_SET:
     clear_bits = low_bits;
     set_bits = new_set;
     break;
   default:
     return -EINVAL;
  }

and notice how you now can do that helper function *WITHOUT* any
conditionals, and just make it do

    sigprocmask(&clear, &set, NULL);

which handles all cases correctly (just "andn clear" + "or set") with
no if's or switch'es.

This is why I _detest_ that idiotic "sigprocmask()" interface. That
"how" parameter is the invention of somebody who didn't understand
sets. It's stupid. There is no reason to have multiple different set
operations, when in practice all anybody ever wants is the "clear
these bits and set those other bits" - an operation that is not only
more generic than the idiotic "how", but is _faster_ too, because it
involves no conditionals.

So I realize that we cannot get away from the broken user interface,
but I do not believe that that means that our _internal_ helper
functions should use that idiotic and broken interface!

I had basically this same comment earlier when you did something
similarly mindless for another case.

So basic rule should be: if you ever pass "how" to any helper
functions, it's broken.

                                     Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-26 21:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-18 13:44 [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-18 13:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] signal: introduce retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 12:04   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 10:49   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: consider shared/unblocked signals only Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 12:22   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 10:52   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 15:20     ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 16:19       ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 17:02         ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 17:11           ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-26 19:45             ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-28 15:26               ` [PATCHSET] signals-review branch Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-30 12:51                 ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:45 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] signal: retarget_shared_pending: optimize while_each_thread() loop Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 12:26   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 11:03   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:45 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] signal: sigprocmask: narrow the scope of ->siglock Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 12:31   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 11:05   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:45 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] signal: sigprocmask() should do retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 12:46   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 11:14   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] x86: signal: handle_signal() should use set_current_blocked() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 13:45   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 11:19   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:46 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] x86: signal: sys_rt_sigreturn() " Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 14:14   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-23 18:12     ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 11:21   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 13:47 ` [PATCH v2 8/7] signal: cleanup sys_rt_sigprocmask() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-22 14:30   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-23 18:20     ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-23 18:47       ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-25 11:26   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-18 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes Linus Torvalds
2011-04-18 17:32   ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-18 17:40     ` Linus Torvalds
2011-04-23 17:59       ` [PATCH 0/3] do_sigtimedwait() needs retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-23 17:59         ` [PATCH 1/3] signal: sys_rt_sigtimedwait: simplify the timeout logic Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 11:37           ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 17:26             ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 17:34               ` Linus Torvalds
2011-04-25 17:56                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 19:38                   ` Linus Torvalds
2011-04-26 10:18           ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-23 17:59         ` [PATCH 2/3] signal: introduce do_sigtimedwait() to factor out compat/native code Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 11:39           ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 11:49           ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 15:33             ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 16:25               ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-26 10:28           ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-23 18:00         ` [PATCH 3/3] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needs retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 11:52           ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 16:01             ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 16:27               ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-25 17:07                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-25 17:12                   ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-26 10:40                   ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-26 10:42           ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-26 19:48         ` [PATCH v2 0/6] sigtimedwait/sigprocmask need retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-26 19:48           ` [PATCH v2 1/6] signal: sys_rt_sigtimedwait: simplify the timeout logic Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-26 19:49           ` [PATCH v2 2/6] signal: introduce do_sigtimedwait() to factor out compat/native code Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-27 10:09             ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-27 21:24             ` Matt Fleming
2011-05-11 16:21             ` Mike Frysinger
2011-05-12 18:54               ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-13 16:44               ` [PATCH] signal: trivial, fix the "timespec declared inside parameter list" warning Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-13 18:09                 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-05-16 12:57                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-16 12:57                     ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-16 17:39                       ` Mike Frysinger
2011-05-18 23:37                       ` Andrew Morton
2011-05-19 18:19                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-19 19:21                           ` Mike Frysinger
2011-04-26 19:49           ` [PATCH v2 3/6] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needs retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-26 19:49           ` [PATCH v2 4/6] signal: cleanup sys_sigprocmask() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-27 10:12             ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-27 21:31             ` Matt Fleming
2011-04-26 19:50           ` [PATCH v2 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-26 21:43             ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2011-04-27 12:57               ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-27 13:04                 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-01 20:07               ` [PATCH v2 0/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2011-05-01 20:08                 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-26 19:50           ` [PATCH v2 6/6] signal: rename signandsets() to sigandnsets() Oleg Nesterov
2011-04-27 10:11             ` Tejun Heo
2011-04-27 21:43             ` Matt Fleming
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-27  1:35 [PATCH v2 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending() George Spelvin
2011-04-27  2:00 ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=BANLkTinp8FGQu2D1NVVc7xfEsqopook7Hg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
    --cc=nyoushchenko@mvista.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).