From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932420AbVHJJME (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:12:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932503AbVHJJME (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:12:04 -0400 Received: from dgate1.fujitsu-siemens.com ([217.115.66.35]:9091 "EHLO dgate1.fujitsu-siemens.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932420AbVHJJMB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:12:01 -0400 X-SBRSScore: None X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,95,1122847200"; d="scan'208"; a="13866254:sNHT27738664" Message-ID: <42F9C4DB.8010001@fujitsu-siemens.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:11:55 +0200 From: Bodo Stroesser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wright CC: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Wilkens Subject: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong References: <42F8EB66.8020002@fujitsu-siemens.com> <1123612016.3167.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42F8F6CC.7090709@fujitsu-siemens.com> <1123612789.3167.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42F8F98B.3080908@fujitsu-siemens.com> <1123614253.3167.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <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> In-Reply-To: <20050809204928.GH7991@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Wright wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > >>Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!). >>The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when >>SA_NODEFER is set. >> >>Now the real question is... Is this a bug? > > > That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3. sa_mask should be always used and > SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in. > > SA_NODEFER > [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's > signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in > sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal > mask on entry to the signal handler. > > Brodo, is this what you mean? > > thanks, > -chris > -- Yes. That's the difference between kernel and man page, that I've found. I like the patch, at least the version Steven has sent. But at the end, others have to decide if kernel or man page should be changed. BTW: would you please call me Bodo? :-) Regards Bodo