![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Chris Wright wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > >>Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!). >>The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when >>SA_NODEFER is set. >> >>Now the real question is... Is this a bug? > > > That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3. sa_mask should be always used and > SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in. > > SA_NODEFER > [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's > signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in > sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal > mask on entry to the signal handler. > > Brodo, is this what you mean? > > thanks, > -chris > -- Yes. That's the difference between kernel and man page, that I've found. I like the patch, at least the version Steven has sent. But at the end, others have to decide if kernel or man page should be changed. BTW: would you please call me Bodo? :-) Regards Bodo - 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: 2005-08-10 11:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||