On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 20:22 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/09, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > 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. > > Agreed, good point. ERESTART_ is not that flexible. > > Somehow I assumed we will never need something "special" here, this is > not very clever. Well, it's not clear that we _will_ need it to be so special. You could perhaps argue that it's overengineering. It's just that at the time I did it, I _thought_ I'd need it for ppoll(). It's only in later optimisations that I realised we only ever really needed to use TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK in the case where ppoll() or pselect() was interrupted. -- dwmw2 -- 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
