Re: Signal handling possibly wrong

[Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com>]

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/