On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> General comments:
>
> - All these patches will be considered a 100% regression by the
> linux-on-a-cellphone people. What do we have to do to make all of this
> stuff Kconfigurable?
I guess we can, yes.
> - All this code is moving us toward bei
I couldn't find signalfd core v8 on lkml, so let's look at v7
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> This patch series implements the new signalfd() system call.
> I took part of the original Linus code (and you know how
> badly it can be broken :), and I added even mo
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > +static void signalfd_unlock(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx,
> > + struct signalfd_lockctx *lk)
> > +{
> > + unlock_task_sighand(lk->tsk, &lk->flags);
> > +}
>
> Again, this is a matter of taste.
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> +static void signalfd_unlock(struct signalfd_ctx *ctx,
> + struct signalfd_lockctx *lk)
> +{
> + unlock_task_sighand(lk->tsk, &lk->flags);
> +}
Again, this is a matter of taste. But I can't understand why signalfd_unlock()
needs "sign
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > +struct signalfd_lockctx {
> > + struct task_struct *tsk;
> > + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +};
>
> signalfd_lockctx is "private" to signalfd_lock/signalfd_unlock. But
> l
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> +struct signalfd_lockctx {
> + struct task_struct *tsk;
> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +};
signalfd_lockctx is "private" to signalfd_lock/signalfd_unlock. But lk->sighand
is used only by signalfd_lock(). I'd suggest to
6 matches
Mail list logo
