![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>If this is indeed the way things should work. I'll go ahead and fix all >>the other architectures. > > > It does appear that this is what the standards describe in the section > quoted by Chris. > > On the other hand, the standard seems to be a bit confused according to > google: > > "This mask is formed by taking the union of the current signal mask and > the value of the sa_mask for the signal being delivered unless > SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being > delivered. If and when the user's signal handler returns normally, the > original signal mask is restored." I've googled a bit, too. Unfortunately, I don't have much knowledge about standards and who defines or changes them. Nevertheless it might help what I've found in "http://www.opengroup.org/austin/docs/austin_251.txt": XSH ERN 84 sigaction Accept as marked below Change from: This mask is formed by taking the union of the current signal mask and the value of the sa_mask for the signal being delivered [XSI] [Option Start] unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, [Option End] and then including the signal being delivered. to: This mask is formed by taking the union of the current signal mask and the value of the sa_mask for the signal being delivered, and [XSI] [Option Start] unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, [Option End] then including the signal being delivered. Maybe, the standard already is fixed? Bodo > > Quite frankly, the way I read it is actually the old Linux behaviour: the > "unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set" seems to be talking about the > whole union of the sa_mask thing, _not_ just the "and the signal being > delivered" part. Exactly the way the kernel currently does (except we > should apparently _also_ do it for SA_RESETHAND). > > So if we decide to change the kernel behaviour, I'd like this to be in -mm > for a while before merging (or merge _very_ early after 2.6.13). I could > imagine this confusing some existing binaries that had only been tested > with the old Linux behaviour, regardless of what a standard says. > Especially since the standard itself is so confusing and badly worded. > > Maybe somebody can tell what other systems do, since I assume the standard > is trying to describe behaviour that actually exists in the wild.. > > 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: 2005-08-10 11:49 [W:0.520 / U:0.180 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||