On 04/27, Al Viro wrote: > > BTW, I'm somewhat tempted to do the following: *ALL* calls of > tracehook_signal_handler() are now immediately preceded by block_signals(). > Moreover, tracehook_signal_handler(...., 0) is currently a no-op, so > it could be painlessly added after the remaining block_signals() instances. > How about *folding* block_signals() (along with clear_restore_sigmask()) > into tracehook_signal_handler()? Oh, please no. Imho, these two have nothing to do with each other. Besides, at least on x86 tracehook_signal_handler's logic is not exactly right and should be fixed. And we are going to kill tracehook.h. While personally I do not think this is the good idea, but the matter of fact is that tracehooks are already destroyed. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
