On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, David Woodhouse wrote:
> It seems that the name of the function was changed to recalc_sigpending_tsk()
> and a new function called recalc_sigpending() was added.
> Was there a reason for doing this, rather than just introducing the new
> function with a different name, such as recalc_sigpending_cur()? It breaks
> 2.4 source compatibility in a way that seems entirely gratuitous.
I don't care. I care 1000% more about clean code than about backwards
source level compatibility.
99% of all users did it for the current task, and for the current task
only. And the non-local users were all in low-level core code (and should
_not_ exist anywhere else - if some driver is playing around with another
tasks signal state, that driver is so incredibly fundamentally broken that
I don't even want to hear about it)
In short, the 2.5.x interface is the correct one.
> Before I have to go and do something evil in my compatmac.h to work round
> this, is there any chance of putting the original recalc_sigpending() back?
Not a chance in hell. The backwards compatibility looks like a trivial
#define recalc_sigpending() recalc_sigpending(current)
so what are you complaining about?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:00:42 EST