![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Von: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> > sem_wait() is another case. Here the EINTR handling is exposed to the > programmer. Currently, as I understand it, even SA_RESTART handlers > cause EINTR to be returned. Yes, this is true for sem_wait(). > Yes, this usually correct but it might > disrupt existing code. > > This is why I'd caution anybody who thinks about changing something in > this area. *I* could live with it, I can fix and recompile all the code > I use. But others aren't that lucky. Yes; this is why I'm only proposing to change EINTR to ERESTARTNOHAND at the moment. The only userspace visible change that I think this will bring about is in the stop+SIGCONT case. Changing EINTR to ERESTARTSYS is likely to have more impact on userland (though it still strikes me as a desirable gola to have all system calls restartable via SA_RESTART). Cheers, Michael -- "Feel free" – 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail - 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: 2006-07-07 07:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||