lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/4] signalfd v1 - signalfd core ...
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> 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.

Let's do this. How about you throw this way one of the case that would
possibly break, and I test it?
Queues are separeted, so if you have a signal hitting you while in
signalfd_dequeue, either the signal is not for your set (and you'd get an
EINTR ATM), or it is for your set too, and signalfd_dequeue will return
with it.
But again, I'd love to have some insides about possible breakages so that
I can make test cases for them.



- Davide


-
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: 2007-03-07 23:13    [W:0.055 / U:0.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site