Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:32:44 +0200 | From | Bodo Stroesser <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |