On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:08:34PM +0200, Chris Travers wrote: > So here's a small patch. I will add it for the next commit fest unless > anyone has any reason I shouldn't.
This is pretty similar to lock levels, where it is pretty hard to put a strict monotone hierarchy when it comes to such interruptions.
I understand how lock levels don't fit a simple hierarchy but at least when it comes
to what is going to be aborted on a signal, I am having trouble understanding the problem here.
Does anyone have any search terms I should look into the archives regarding this issue?
I will assume this patch will be rejected then.
The new code does not seem like an improvment either, as for example in the code mentioned above, you know directly what are the actions involved, which is not the case with the new code style.
The initial motivation for this patch was that it felt a little bit odd to be using global
boolean flags for this sort of approach and I was concerned that if this approach
proliferated it might cause problems later. As far as I know my previous patch was
the second use of the current pattern.
So one thing I wonder is if there are ways where abstracting this would make more sense.