Von: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
> sem_wait() is another case. Here the EINTR handling is exposed to the
> programmer. Currently, as I understand it, even SA_RESTART handlers
> cause EINTR to be returned.
Yes, this is true for sem_wait().
> Yes, this usually correct but it might
> disrupt existing code.
>
> This is why I'd caution anybody who thinks about changing something in
> this area. *I* could live with it, I can fix and recompile all the code
> I use. But others aren't that lucky.
Yes; this is why I'm only proposing to change EINTR to ERESTARTNOHAND
at the moment. The only userspace visible change that I think
this will bring about is in the stop+SIGCONT case. Changing EINTR
to ERESTARTSYS is likely to have more impact on userland (though
it still strikes me as a desirable gola to have all system calls
restartable via SA_RESTART).
Cheers,
Michael
--
"Feel free" – 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
