David Woodhouse wrote: > If it's mandatory that we actually call the signal handler, then we need > to play tricks like sigsuspend() does to leave the old signal mask on > the stack frame. That's a bit painful atm because do_signal is different > between architectures. It is necessary that the handler is called. This is the purpose of these interfaces. If this means more complexity is needed then this is how the cookie crumbles. One use case for pselect would be something like this: int got_signal; void sigint_handler(int sig) { got_signal = 1; } { ... while (1) { if (!got_signal) pselect() if (got_signal) { handle signal got_signal = 0; } } ... } -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Prev by Date: Re: Incorrect CLOCK_TICK_RATE in 2.6 kernel
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- Previous by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Next by thread: Re: Add pselect, ppoll system calls.
- Index(es):