Re: filesystem signal handling

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 13:05 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > NFS does this. It's fairly ugly. What would be a _lot_ nicer if we could
> > have something in the task_struct which is vaguely reminiscent of
> > preempt_count, only it counts the number of reasons why this task cannot
> > receive signals. So instead of using the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE states to make the decision, we'd look at the
> > task's uninterruptible_count instead. 
> 
> The reason NFS has the scheme that it does is precisely *because* we
> want to set our own sigmask.
> 
> The reason is that we'd like to respect SIGINT, SIGQUIT and SIGKILL as
> signalling that the user wants to interrupt the operation if and only if
> the "intr" mount flag has been set.

Is there a benefit to having precisely this implementation, as opposed
to the option of allowing only fatal signals? What standard do we need
to adhere to?

-- 
dwmw2