> This is microoptimization, both ->signal and ->sighand are cleared at the same > time in __exit_signal(), so we can check either. But we are using the value of > ->sighand below, so it makes sense to read ->sighand, not ->signal.
Ok. Anality would suggest doing that in a separate patch, though I don't really care. > Andrew, it is very easy to send the new patch to fix the code, but is it > possible to fix the changelog somehow for the patch in -mm tree? I'd prefer a comment in the code there making it explicit that ->sighand is a "reaped yet" synchronization check (under tasklist_lock). Thanks, Roland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
