Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:45:53 +0200 | From | "Michael Kerrisk" <> | Subject | Re: paccept() oddity |
| |
Ulrich -- Ping!
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com> wrote: > Ulrich, > > [ > 2.6.27-rc has paccept(): > > int paccept(int fd, struct sockaddr *sockaddr, socklen_t *addrlen, > const sigset_t *sigmask, int setsize, int flags) > ] > > While considering the sigset argument for paccept() (see my previous > message), and testing that system call, I realized that there is a certain > oddness in the implementation of paccept(). > > Like accept(), paccept() automatically restarts if interrupted by a signal > handler that was established with the SA_RESTART flag. > > On the other hand, pselect(), ppoll(), and epoll_pwait() are never restarted > if interrupted by a handler, even if the handler was established with > SA_RESTART. (This is the same as with select(), poll(), and epoll_wait().) > > It seems to me that it makes little sense to restart paccept(), especially > in > the case where it is interrupted by a handler for one of the signals that is > in sigmask, since the whole point of calling paccept() is to block until a > connection is received, or until one of the signals in sigmask is caught(). > > How about changing paccept() so that it is never automatically restarted if > interrupted by a signal handler, regardless of the SA_RESTART flag. (In > other words, paccept() should be consistent with pselect(), ppoll(), and > epoll_pwait(), rather than being consistent with accept().) What are your > thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Michael > >
-- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
| |