Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask

[Marc Ballarin <Ballarin.Marc@gmx.de>]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Jan Engelhardt (jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de) 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/