On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote: > > It could be a PF_* too, I suppose. There aren't too many of those > bits free, but it would have the advantage of being a place for an > arch that doesn't store any TS_* bits anywhere. Yeah, I guess PF_ would be a bit more regular. Maybe we should even try to avoid the use of TS_ in x86, and turn it into PF_. There are probably bad historical reasons for the duplication of capabilities. > Since acting on the flag is in arch signal code anyway, it makes some > sense to let the arch define how it gets that to happen. I'll send > some follow-on patches that change the conditionals to use #ifdef > HAVE_SET_RESTORE_SIGMASK. Let's see if it matters first. No reason to add another arch-specific thing if nobody can even measure this thing, and from a quick look it seems like every RESTORE_SIGMASK user is basically an error path for a system call. Those few extra cycles really won't be noticeable, we almost certainly have better things we could use our energy on. So never mind. I think your series is fine, and my TS_ idea doesn't really look like it's worth it (and using PF_ sounds a bit more palatable since we could do it with existing infrastructure, but a quick grep shows that there's more users of test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) than I would have expected (and the *testing* is equally cheap for atomic and thread- synchronous fields, so that's not a performance issue). Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
