On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:41:55PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > 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. Details, please... > 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. See signal.git#master. I ended up with signal_delivered(<tracehook_signal_handler arguments>) and that sucker does both things. The funny thing is, block_sigmask() (apologies for typo above) is not used anywhere else... -- 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
