lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: another subtle signals issue

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This should be fine (almost). POSIX leaves it unspecified whether a
> blocked, ignored signal is left pending or not. The only thing it requires
> is that setting a blocked signal to SIG_IGN clears any pending signal, and
> sigaction already does that.

Hmm.. We could move the blocking test down, and only consider that for the
"SIG_DFL" case.

The function I did matches what the old signal code did, but the more
signals we can truly ignore, the better. I dunno.

Linus

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.045 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site