On 02/23, wenyang.linux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
By explicitly initializing ksig->info.si_code and uniformly using ksig->info,
get_signal() function could be slightly optimized, as folowes:
I don't understand. Why do you think it will be optimized? in what sense?
clear_siginfo(&ksig->info);
ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL; --> missed si_code
because we do not need to set .si_code in this case?
sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, --> unnecessary SEND_SIG_NOINFO
Why do you think the usage of SEND_SIG_NOINFO is "unnecessary" or bad?
To me this looks good.
@@ -2732,8 +2732,9 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
signal->group_exec_task) {
clear_siginfo(&ksig->info);
ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
+ ksig->info.si_code = SI_USER;
sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
- trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
+ trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, &ksig->info,
Well. to me this look like the minor but unnecessary pessimization.
AFAICS, we do not need to initialize .si_code. The usage if ksig->info
instead of means that TP_STORE_SIGINFO() will actually read
the memory.
Sorry, I don't understand the point at all :/
and it seems that we can simply kill clear_siginfo(), but this is
another story.
Oleg.