Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:48:31 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] posix timers: don't discard the signal if the timer was explicitly destroyed |
| |
On 04/22, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > I am not sure this patch is really needed, please review. > > I don't think this is worth doing. > > > The previous patch adds the user-visible change. It is not clear to me why > > should we cancel the pending signal sent by the timer after timer_delete(). > > Suppose the signal is blocked, pending, the user checks sys_rt_sigpending(), > > destroys the timer and then doesn't see the signal. > > So? POSIX says it's unspecified what happens to such a signal,
Ah, good!
> so an > application can't rely on it one way or the other. I don't see any reason > to complicate it further.
Agreed, please ignore this patch.
Thanks! I really hoped you will nack this, I hate the additional complications too.
Oleg.
| |