From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935836AbYEUSv4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 14:51:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756394AbYEUSvr (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 14:51:47 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59076 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755313AbYEUSvq (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 14:51:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Roland McGrath cc: Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Austin Clements , Ingo Molnar , john stultz , Michael Kerrisk , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if it is queued In-Reply-To: <20080521184245.5BABF26FA24@magilla.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20080517151420.GA9496@tv-sign.ru> <20080521022046.1501F26FA1C@magilla.localdomain> <20080521115414.GA147@tv-sign.ru> <20080521184245.5BABF26FA24@magilla.localdomain> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 May 2008, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Just properly removing the sigqueue entry and fixing the pending set is > looking pretty good. Why was it we didn't do that? I thought we didn't even know which queue it was pending on if it was already on a thread-local queue. So we could remove the entry, but I always objected to the games with the pending bit. Just removing the entry I'm ok with, it was the (pointless and misleading) use of recalc_sigpending() that started the whole discussion. The fact that we then also have that "which signal is pending" bit in front of the queue was something that came up later. Linus