On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Jan Engelhardt ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
>
> I've supplied this before, but I'll send it again. Attached is a program
> that should show the behavior of the sigaction. If someone has one of the
> above mentioned boxes, please run this on the box and send back the
> results.
This is from NetBSD 2.0:
sa_mask blocks other signals
SA_NODEFER does not block other signals
SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask
SA_NODEFER and sa_mask does not block sig
!SA_NODEFER blocks sig
SA_NODEFER does not block sig
sa_mask blocks sig
This is from SFU 3.5 on WinXP (*):
sa_mask blocks other signals
SA_NODEFER does not block other signals
SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask
SA_NODEFER and sa_mask blocks sig
!SA_NODEFER blocks sig
SA_NODEFER blocks sig
sa_mask blocks sig
(*) original signal.h did not define SA_NODEFER, so take this with a
grain of salt
Marc
-
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]
| |
 |