From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Subject: Re: Fix signal handler Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:04:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4B699E7C.1030007@web.de> References: <4B684F5F.7020409@web.de> <20100202205849.GA14385@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4B689CC5.3000400@web.de> <20100202223208.GB18781@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4B694DEE.5030207@web.de> <20100203102915.GA25486@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4B696447.10803@web.de> <20100203151709.GA28477@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 03 17:04:22 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NchiH-0003Tx-DZ for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:04:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932476Ab0BCQEQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:04:16 -0500 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:58194 "EHLO fmmailgate02.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932434Ab0BCQEP (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:04:15 -0500 Received: from smtp06.web.de (fmsmtp06.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.172]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372C214D04455; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:04:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [78.54.162.123] (helo=[192.168.1.202]) by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314) id 1NchiA-0004AL-00; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:04:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 In-Reply-To: <20100203151709.GA28477@coredump.intra.peff.net> X-Sender: Markus.Elfring@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+R1fWp6XZxY4cFsg8/BbjTuXS1iGRKm7nem7mT CUajwQKIAlziOYXjADH5/bp+m0uTS9lhcOIOgjDmYTqTcyKBrh eDKw1KlDs1GWN9FCNTag== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > > If your patch is not too intrusive, and especially if you can demonstrate > that it is a problem on a real-world system, then I think your patch would > be considered for inclusion upstream. > I have got the feeling that my corresponding update suggestion (in source code form) would become intrusive to some degree. If I do not get an indication that issues from word-tearing in signal handlers is a mentionable problem here, I assume that your acceptance is low for potential fixes from every software developer (including me). Regards, Markus