Re: [PATCH] signal: annotate siglock acquisition

[Eric Dumazet]

Le samedi 25 septembre 2010 Ã 20:33 +0900, Namhyung Kim a Ãcrit :

> What's the difference? I didn't change the semantics of likely clause
> but simply exchange the order of then-else part because IMHO a
> negative expression make it hard to understand, generally.
> I've checked compiled binaries for both cases on x86 and they
> produced exactly same code.
> 


Anyway, re-reading your patch, I just dont get why you use __cond_lock()
two times, but not on this part ?

if (!likely(__cond_lock(&t->sighand->siglock,
			lock_task_sighand(t, &flags))))
	goto ret;

This way, your patch would not be misleading.


Another way to deal with this sparse mess is to use a macro, like we do
for read_trylock() :

#define read_trylock(lock)    __cond_lock(lock, _raw_read_trylock(lock))

-->

#define lock_task_sighand(t, flags) 			\
	__cond_lock(&(t)->sighand->siglock,		\
		    _raw_lock_task_sighand(t, flags))



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/