[resent - previous message not properly addressed]
It says "signal is blocked, UNLESS SA_NODEFER is used.."
Which means if NODEFER is used, it's not masked (SA_NOMASK)..
I don't understand how i'm wrong (maybe I have mental problems that are
worse than I thought). If you want to explain off-list or on-list
(depending on whether others are getting annoyed at me) you can. Or
just ignore me and i'll go away and someone else who wants to look at it
can.
-Rob
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 20:44 +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> Robert Wilkens wrote:
> > Bodo,
> >
> > SA_MASK is a flag... Which you use to tell it what to do with the data
> > you've given it and/or it gets. You gave it sa_mask (lower-case).
> > SA_NOMASK means don't use the mask -- the pseudonym (new-word) for
> > SA_NOMASK is SA_NODEFER (renamed, perhaps, because it may defer some or
> > all signals rather than throwing them away, you probably can receive the
> > waiting signals by clearing the SA_NODEFER flag on a subsequent call).
> >
> > If you want to take this off-list, I'm OK with that..
> >
> > Please describe what you would expect SA_NODEFER to do in your own
> > language if you don't understand what I seem to understand.
> >
> > -Rob
> > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 20:32 +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
> >
>
> Sorry, unfortunately you are not right. See this (from man page for sigaction):
>
> struct sigaction {
> void (*sa_handler)(int);
> void (*sa_sigaction)(int, siginfo_t *, void *);
> sigset_t sa_mask;
> int sa_flags;
> void (*sa_restorer)(void);
> }
>
> Please read the text about element sa_mask of struct sigaction to
> understand what I'm talking about.
>
> Regards
> Bodo
>
>
> >>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 [email protected]
> >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> -
> 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/
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |