(Argh: Mail-Followup-To spam your mailer sets up is nasty!)
* Szabolcs Nagy <n...@port70.net> wrote:
> > 4. A calls cancellation point and syscall correctly executes
> > 5. Once A enables cancellation again, the cancellation propagates.
> >
> > So I still see no problem.
>
> i think the sticky signal design would work, but more
> complex than what we have and adds some atomic rmw ops
> into common code paths and not backward compatible.
Agreed about complexity, but note that the RMW ops shouldn't really be
expensive
here, as this should be a well-cached flag. Especially compared to:
> not using vsyscalls for cancellation-points sounds easier.
... FYI not using vsyscalls has _far_ higher cost than using well-cached RMW
ops.
So ... what do you think about Linus's SA_SYNCHRONOUS approach? I think it can
be
made to work without much fuss.
There will still be different code paths on old and new kernels, but that's
unavoidable.
Thanks,
Ingo
