Re: [PATCH 2/4] set_restore_sigmask TIF_SIGPENDING

From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: 2008-03-29 13:52:06
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It could be a PF_* too, I suppose.  There aren't too many of those
> bits free, but it would have the advantage of being a place for an
> arch that doesn't store any TS_* bits anywhere.

Yeah, I guess PF_ would be a bit more regular. Maybe we should even try to 
avoid the use of TS_ in x86, and turn it into PF_. There are probably bad 
historical reasons for the duplication of capabilities.

> Since acting on the flag is in arch signal code anyway, it makes some
> sense to let the arch define how it gets that to happen.  I'll send
> some follow-on patches that change the conditionals to use #ifdef

Let's see if it matters first. No reason to add another arch-specific 
thing if nobody can even measure this thing, and from a quick look it 
seems like every RESTORE_SIGMASK user is basically an error path for a 
system call. Those few extra cycles really won't be noticeable, we almost 
certainly have better things we could use our energy on.

So never mind. I think your series is fine, and my TS_ idea doesn't really 
look like it's worth it (and using PF_ sounds a bit more palatable since 
we could do it with existing infrastructure, but a quick grep shows that 
there's more users of test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK) than I would 
have expected (and the *testing* is equally cheap for atomic and thread- 
synchronous fields, so that's not a performance issue).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Sat Mar 29 13:52:58 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2008-03-29 13:53:12 EST