From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1750920AbVHLSpe@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1750920AbVHLSpe (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:45:34 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750925AbVHLSpe
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:45:34 -0400
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:55433 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750918AbVHLSpe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:45:34 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:45:03 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, gdt@linuxppc.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Wilkens <robw@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask
Message-ID: <20050812184503.GX7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <1123615983.18332.194.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42F906EB.6060106@fujitsu-siemens.com> <1123617812.18332.199.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1123618745.18332.204.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050809204928.GH7991@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1123621223.9553.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1123621637.9553.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508091419420.3258@g5.osdl.org> <1123643401.9553.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508122036500.16845@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508122036500.16845@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

* Jan Engelhardt (jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de) wrote:
> >Actually I take it the other way.  The wording is awful. But the "unless
> >SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being
> >delivered".  This looks to me that it adds the signal being delivered to
> >the blocked mask unless the SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set. I kind of
> >wonder if English is the native language of those that wrote this.  
> 
> 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.