Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1291574
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix |
| Date | 2015-12-14 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qFIHf-382-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qFmdI-5c9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qFGm5-1sC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:50:04PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > + ret = (*action)(&q->key, mode); > > And every action() should check signal_pending_state()... > > So why we can't change __wait_on_bit/etc instead and remove all the signal- > pending checks from the callbacks? It seems that we can just check > signal_pending_state() before prepare_to_wait(). Or perhaps we can add > another helper which acts like prepare_to_wait_event(). > > Yes, some callers want -EINTR, some -ERESTARTSYS, but this shouldn't be a > problem. > > And sorry if this was already discussed, another case when I am trying to > return to lkml with a lot of unread emails. Yes that looks like a viable cleanup. But at least now we have a base that's working for everyone. I'll try and do some patches tomorrow. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-13 22:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-12-14 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-12-14 22:20 +0100
csiph-web