On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:39 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > As I see it, the main disadvantage of ERESTART_ approach is that we need 2 > new ERESTART_ codes, one for ERESTARTNOHAND, another for ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK. > And yes, while I personally think this is "more clean", it is very subjective. Subjective, yeah.... personally, I don't like using ERESTART_xxx much, because you're _not_ necessarily restarting the system call. The separate flag for TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK (or TLF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) seems cleaner to me -- especially once you observe that you need new codes for ERESTART_xxx_AND_RESTORE_SIGMASK for each ERESTART_xxx that you might want to use in conjunction with the flags. But I don't really care much either, if you want to change it and get the details right. One of the supposed advantages of TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the first place, iirc, was that it allowed us to return a result code other than -EINTR as _well_ as restoring the signal mask. But we don't actually make use of that possibility now anyway. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|