On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> If this is indeed the way things should work. I'll go ahead and fix all
> the other architectures.
It does appear that this is what the standards describe in the section
quoted by Chris.
On the other hand, the standard seems to be a bit confused according to
google:
"This mask is formed by taking the union of the current signal mask and
the value of the sa_mask for the signal being delivered unless
SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being
delivered. If and when the user's signal handler returns normally, the
original signal mask is restored."
Quite frankly, the way I read it is actually the old Linux behaviour: the
"unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set" seems to be talking about the
whole union of the sa_mask thing, _not_ just the "and the signal being
delivered" part. Exactly the way the kernel currently does (except we
should apparently _also_ do it for SA_RESETHAND).
So if we decide to change the kernel behaviour, I'd like this to be in -mm
for a while before merging (or merge _very_ early after 2.6.13). I could
imagine this confusing some existing binaries that had only been tested
with the old Linux behaviour, regardless of what a standard says.
Especially since the standard itself is so confusing and badly worded.
Maybe somebody can tell what other systems do, since I assume the standard
is trying to describe behaviour that actually exists in the wild..
Linus
-
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]
| |
 |