LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] fork.c: cleanup for copy_sighand()
@ 2008-10-31 8:51 Zhaolei
2008-11-04 23:54 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Zhaolei @ 2008-10-31 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: akpm
Check CLONE_SIGHAND only is enough, because combination of CLONE_THREAD and
CLONE_SIGHAND is already done in copy_process().
Impact: cleanup, no functionality changed
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index f608356..36a0dac 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ static int copy_sighand(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
{
struct sighand_struct *sig;
- if (clone_flags & (CLONE_SIGHAND | CLONE_THREAD)) {
+ if (clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) {
atomic_inc(¤t->sighand->count);
return 0;
}
--
1.5.5.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fork.c: cleanup for copy_sighand()
2008-10-31 8:51 [PATCH] fork.c: cleanup for copy_sighand() Zhaolei
@ 2008-11-04 23:54 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2008-11-04 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhaolei; +Cc: linux-kernel, Roland McGrath, Oleg Nesterov
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:51:19 +0800
Zhaolei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Check CLONE_SIGHAND only is enough, because combination of CLONE_THREAD and
> CLONE_SIGHAND is already done in copy_process().
>
> Impact: cleanup, no functionality changed
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index f608356..36a0dac 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ static int copy_sighand(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> struct sighand_struct *sig;
>
> - if (clone_flags & (CLONE_SIGHAND | CLONE_THREAD)) {
> + if (clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) {
> atomic_inc(¤t->sighand->count);
> return 0;
> }
OK, it appears to be correct and might yield a tiny speedup on some
architectures.
But whether this change is desirable from a clarity and maintainability
point of view is unclear to me. Let's add the cc's..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-04 23:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-10-31 8:51 [PATCH] fork.c: cleanup for copy_sighand() Zhaolei
2008-11-04 23:54 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).