lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-22 21:53    [W:0.037 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site