From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>

Now that we don't pre-allocate the new ->sighand, we can kill the first fast
path, it doesn't make sense any longer. At best, it can save one "list_empty()"
check but leads to the code duplication.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 fs/exec.c |   10 ----------
 1 files changed, 10 deletions(-)

diff -puN fs/exec.c~exec-consolidate-2-fast-paths fs/exec.c
--- a/fs/exec.c~exec-consolidate-2-fast-paths
+++ a/fs/exec.c
@@ -752,16 +752,6 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct 
 	struct task_struct *leader = NULL;
 	int count;
 
-	/*
-	 * If we don't share sighandlers, then we aren't sharing anything
-	 * and we can just re-use it all.
-	 */
-	if (atomic_read(&oldsighand->count) <= 1) {
-		signalfd_detach(tsk);
-		exit_itimers(sig);
-		return 0;
-	}
-
 	if (thread_group_empty(tsk))
 		goto no_thread_group;
 
_