[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such



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.

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.

Oleg.

--
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


[Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]


  Powered by Linux