Chris Wright wrote:
* Steven Rostedt ([email protected]) wrote:
Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!).
The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when
SA_NODEFER is set.
Now the real question is... Is this a bug?
That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3. sa_mask should be always used and
SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in.
SA_NODEFER
[XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's
signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in
sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal
mask on entry to the signal handler.
Brodo, is this what you mean?
thanks,
-chris
--
Yes. That's the difference between kernel and man page, that I've found.
I like the patch, at least the version Steven has sent. But at the end,
others have to decide if kernel or man page should be changed.
BTW: would you please call me Bodo? :-)
Regards
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/
[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]
| |
 |