Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
From: Steven Rostedt (rostedt_at_goodmis.org)
Date: 08/09/05
- Previous message: James Bottomley: "Re: Linux-2.6.13-rc6: aic7xxx testers please.."
- In reply to: Bodo Stroesser: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Reply: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:03:32 -0400
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 21:41 +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> S
> > To me, the man pages make more sense, and I think the kernel is wrong.
>
> Yes, that's what I think, too. If someone doesn't want additional signals
> to be masked, he can set sa_mask to be empty.
> OTOH, I have no idea, what POSIX specifies. Maybe kernel is right and man
> page is wrong?
>
> Bodo
> >
Man pages and kernel are right. I just tested this out on 2.6.13-rc3
with the attached program and it seems to follow what is stated in the
man pages. So the assumption of what the code did by looking at it
proves to be the mistake. :-)
Conclusion: sa_mask defers the signals. SA_NODEFER defers the sent
signal.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- text/x-csrc attachment: signal.c__charset_us-ascii
- Previous message: James Bottomley: "Re: Linux-2.6.13-rc6: aic7xxx testers please.."
- In reply to: Bodo Stroesser: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Reply: Steven Rostedt: "Re: Signal handling possibly wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|