On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:16:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/01, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > has_pending_signals() already behaves like a boolean function. Let's > > actually declare it as such too. > > But this patch does more. > > > - case 4: ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3]; > > - ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2]; > > - ready |= signal->sig[1] &~ blocked->sig[1]; > > - ready |= signal->sig[0] &~ blocked->sig[0]; > > + case 4: > > + ready = signal->sig[3] & ~blocked->sig[3]; > > + ready |= signal->sig[2] & ~blocked->sig[2]; > > + ready |= signal->sig[1] & ~blocked->sig[1]; > > + ready |= signal->sig[0] & ~blocked->sig[0]; > > break; > > Again, personally I do not care at all. But why do you think the code looks > better after re-formatting? This is subjective, but to me it does not. > > In particular, note the extra space before "=" removed by this patch. I guess > it was added on purpose, and to me > > ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3]; > ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2]; > > actually looks better thab > > ready = signal->sig[3] &~ blocked->sig[3]; > ready |= signal->sig[2] &~ blocked->sig[2]; > > after your patch.
I can drop the changes in v3. Thanks! Christian > > Oleg. >
