[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXN3Jd=8TOsHejVNQj8ef4KH-GYzW8rD6ounq=ZX9TT5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:01:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/32] signal: Consolidate {TS,TLF}_RESTORE_SIGMASK code
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> In general, there's no need for the "restore sigmask" flag to live in
>> ti->flags. alpha, ia64, microblaze, powerpc, sh, sparc (64-bit only),
>> tile, and x86 use essentially identical alternative implementations,
>> placing the flag in ti->status.
>>
>> Replace those optimized implementations with an equally good common
>> implementation that stores it in a bitfield in struct task_struct
>> and drop the custom implementations.
>>
>> Additional architectures can opt in by removing their
>> TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK defines.
>
> There is a small typo in the subject, should be "signal: Consolidate
> {TS,TIF}_RESTORE_SIGMASK code"
I really did mean "TLF" -- it's a powerpc-ism. This patch doesn't
affect TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK on architectures that have that flag,
although it makes it much easier for them to get rid of it.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
