On 02/21, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:57 +0300
> Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd suggest to make a separate function, but not complicate collect_signal().
> >
> okay. I'll try again if people admit me to go ahead.
Yes, it would be nice to know what maintainers think. This is a user visible
change, even if good.
> > > + clear_stale_sigchild(current, retval);
> >
> > But we are not checking that SIGCHLD is blocked?
> >
> I'm sorry if I don't read SUSv3 correctly. SUSv3 doesn't define how we should
> do if SIGCHLD is not blocked.(so I don't check not-blocked case.)
Probably it is me who misunderstands SUSv3. Could you point me the reference
to authoritative document? My understanding: if blocked AND wait() succeeds.
> IMHO, user's sig-child-handler is tend to call wait()/waitpid() and expects
> successful return. So removing stale signal here may be good.
Yes. But sig-child-handler should do
while (wait() >= 0)
....
anyway, because SIGCHLD is not a realtime signal.
> If this breaks assumptions of applications on Linux, I'll not go eagerly.
I just don't know... (Michael Kerrisk cc'ed).
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
