Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:01:33 -0800 | From | "Ulrich Drepper" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] signalfd v1 - signalfd core ... |
| |
On 3/7/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > 1) You want standard delivery only: > > > > - Just dont use signalfd > > > > 2) you want signalfd only: > > > > - Do a sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) of the same mask you pass to signalfd > > > > If you want both, you can have it. Race free. > > .. but maybe with more code and lots of confusion. I'm still unclear on > any upsides here. > > Choice is good, but only if it's *useful* choice.
Not only that. If you don't force that the signal is blocked when using signalfd() you are bound to run into problems. For the same reason is it required to have signals blocked when you use sigwait() etc. Don't try to innovate here, I guarantee you it's going to break something somewhere. - 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/
| |