Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:54:51 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] Consolidate send_sigqueue and send_group_sigqueue |
| |
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > - > > - if (unlikely(!list_empty(&q->list))) { > > - /* > > - * If an SI_TIMER entry is already queue just increment > > - * the overrun count. > > - */ > > - BUG_ON(q->info.si_code != SI_TIMER); > > - q->info.si_overrun++; > > - goto out; > > - } > > - /* Short-circuit ignored signals. */ > > - if (sig_ignored(p, sig)) { > > - ret = 1; > > - goto out; > > - }
> > send_group_sigqueue(int sig, struct sigqueue *q, struct task_struct *p)
> > - /* Short-circuit ignored signals. */ > > - if (sig_ignored(p, sig)) { > > - ret = 1; > > - goto out; > > - } > > - > > - if (unlikely(!list_empty(&q->list))) { > > - /* > > - * If an SI_TIMER entry is already queue just increment > > - * the overrun count. Other uses should not try to > > - * send the signal multiple times. > > - */ > > - BUG_ON(q->info.si_code != SI_TIMER); > > - q->info.si_overrun++; > > - goto out; > > - } > > Personally, I think this change is very good. But send_sigqueue() and > send_group_sigqueue() have a very subtle difference which I was never > able to understand. > > Let's suppose that sigqueue is already queued, and the signal is ignored > (the latter means we should re-schedule cpu timer or handle overrruns). > In that case send_sigqueue() returns 0, but send_group_sigqueue() returns 1. > > I think this is not the problem (in fact, I think this patch makes the > behaviour more correct), but I hope Thomas can take a look and confirm.
It should not change anything. We should never have a signal enqueued when it's ignored anyway.
Roland, any insight why this is different aside of a copy and paste error ?
Thanks,
tglx
| |