* Jan Engelhardt ([email protected]) wrote: > >Actually I take it the other way. The wording is awful. But the "unless > >SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being > >delivered". This looks to me that it adds the signal being delivered to > >the blocked mask unless the SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set. I kind of > >wonder if English is the native language of those that wrote this. > > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+ > different behaviors the users out there favor most. Rather, check what happens in practice on other implementations. I don't have Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, AIX, etc. boxen at hand, but some folks must. - 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: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- References:
- 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]>
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- 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
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: Signal handling possibly wrong
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/3] uml: share page bits handling between 2 and 3 level pagetables
- Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6.12.3] PCI/libata INTx cleanup
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
- Index(es):
