lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Signal handling possibly wrong
Robert Wilkens wrote:
>>Kernel code blocks both "handled signal" _and_ sa_mask only if SA_NODEFER
>>isn't set.
>>
>>Which is the right behavior?
>
>
> Perhaps both?
>
> I'm novice here, but if i'm reading the man page correctly, it says:
>
> SA_NODEFER
> Do not prevent the signal from being received from within
> its own signal handler.
> (they also imply that SA_NOMASK is the old name for this,
> which might make it clear what it's use is).
>
> In which case blocking (masking) when it's not set is exactly what it's
> supposed to do.
>
> -Rob

Yes. That's true.

But what about sa_mask? Description of SA_NODEFER and sa_mask both do not
say, that usage of sa_mask depends on SA_NODEFER.
But kernel only uses sa_mask, if SA_NODEFER isn't set.

So, I think man page and kernel are not consistent.

Bodo
-
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: 2005-08-09 20:35    [W:0.066 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site