Re: [PATCH v5 18/32] signal: Consolidate {TS, TLF}_RESTORE_SIGMASK code

2016-07-12 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Brian Gerst wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski 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), >>

Re: [PATCH v5 18/32] signal: Consolidate {TS, TLF}_RESTORE_SIGMASK code

2016-07-12 Thread Brian Gerst
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Andy Lutomirski 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, >

[PATCH v5 18/32] signal: Consolidate {TS,TLF}_RESTORE_SIGMASK code

2016-07-11 Thread Andy Lutomirski
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