From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000 > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative >> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now >> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't >> dealt with the biarch side of things yet... > > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing > (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that > uses it tends to use it only for very uncommon events). So forcing all > the sigaltstack code into generic code and at least avoiding the > "different architectures can get things subtly - or not so subtly - > wrong in different ways" sounds like a good thing. FWIW, if folks are looking for testcases there are a small number in glibc, a quick grep shows: nptl/tst-cancel20.c nptl/tst-cancel21.c nptl/tst-signal6.c debug/tst-longjmp_chk2.c LTP probably has a bunch too. -- 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
