If this is indeed the way things should work. I'll go ahead and fix all the other architectures. -- Steve Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> --- linux-2.6.13-rc6-git1/arch/ppc/kernel/signal.c.orig 2005-08-09 17:00:43.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-git1/arch/ppc/kernel/signal.c 2005-08-09 17:01:37.000000000 -0400 @@ -759,13 +759,12 @@ int do_signal(sigset_t *oldset, struct p else handle_signal(signr, &ka, &info, oldset, regs, newsp); - if (!(ka.sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) { - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); - sigorsets(¤t->blocked,¤t->blocked,&ka.sa.sa_mask); + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); + sigorsets(¤t->blocked,¤t->blocked,&ka.sa.sa_mask); + if (!(ka.sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) sigaddset(¤t->blocked, signr); - recalc_sigpending(); - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); - } + recalc_sigpending(); + spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); return 1; } - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- References:
- Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Bodo Stroesser <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Robert Wilkens <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Bodo Stroesser <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Robert Wilkens <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Bodo Stroesser <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Robert Wilkens <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Bodo Stroesser <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Signal handling possibly wrong
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)
- Next by Date: Standardize shutdown of the system from enviroment control modules
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- Index(es):