Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:07:31 +0200 | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | Subject | Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT |
| |
Von: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
> sem_wait() is another case. Here the EINTR handling is exposed to the > programmer. Currently, as I understand it, even SA_RESTART handlers > cause EINTR to be returned.
Yes, this is true for sem_wait().
> Yes, this usually correct but it might > disrupt existing code. > > This is why I'd caution anybody who thinks about changing something in > this area. *I* could live with it, I can fix and recompile all the code > I use. But others aren't that lucky.
Yes; this is why I'm only proposing to change EINTR to ERESTARTNOHAND at the moment. The only userspace visible change that I think this will bring about is in the stop+SIGCONT case. Changing EINTR to ERESTARTSYS is likely to have more impact on userland (though it still strikes me as a desirable gola to have all system calls restartable via SA_RESTART).
Cheers,
Michael --
"Feel free" – 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail - 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/
| |