Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:47:15 +0200 | From | Marc Ballarin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask |
| |
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Jan Engelhardt (jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de) wrote: > > > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+ > > > different behaviors the users out there favor most. > > > > Rather, check what happens in practice on other implementations. I don't > > have Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, AIX, etc. boxen at hand, but some folks must. > > > > I've supplied this before, but I'll send it again. Attached is a program > that should show the behavior of the sigaction. If someone has one of the > above mentioned boxes, please run this on the box and send back the > results.
This is from NetBSD 2.0:
sa_mask blocks other signals SA_NODEFER does not block other signals SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask SA_NODEFER and sa_mask does not block sig !SA_NODEFER blocks sig SA_NODEFER does not block sig sa_mask blocks sig
This is from SFU 3.5 on WinXP (*):
sa_mask blocks other signals SA_NODEFER does not block other signals SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask SA_NODEFER and sa_mask blocks sig !SA_NODEFER blocks sig SA_NODEFER blocks sig sa_mask blocks sig
(*) original signal.h did not define SA_NODEFER, so take this with a grain of salt
Marc - 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/
| |