[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land
Followup to:  <>
By author:
In newsgroup:
> Thanks for the info.
> After looking at it, let me modify my position a bit.
> My problem is that pthread_create (glibc 2.1.3, kernel 2.2.17 i686) is
> failing because, deep inside glibc somewhere, nanosleep() is returning
> My code is not using signals. The threading library is, and there is
> obviously some subtle bug going on here. Ever wonder why when browsing
> with Netscape and you click on a link and it says "Interrupted system
> call."? This is it. I'm arguing that the default behaviour should be
> SA_RESTART, and if some programmer is so studly that they actually know
> what the hell they are doing by disabling SA_RESTART, then they can do
> it explicitly.

They do so explicitly by not specifying SA_RESTART. It's a bitmask,
and the behaviour of each bit is specified by POSIX.

> I don't mean this to sound like a rant.

It does... it sounds like a rant someone who hasn't even bothered
looking up the relevant standards and interfaced.

> It's just that I can't possibly ascertain why someone in their right
> mind would want any behaviour different than SA_RESTART.

Synchronous post-processing of signals. Too many things cannot be
safely done in a signal handler context.

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.025 / U:1.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site