From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: ppoll with multiple threads Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 09:01:21 +0200 Message-ID: <55447641.9090201@gmail.com> References: <5244AF7E.1020500@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5244AF7E.1020500-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ian Pilcher , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hello Ian, On 09/27/2013 12:04 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > The select(2) man page was updated about a year ago to clarify the > behavior of pselect in multi-threaded programs. > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/man2/select.2?id=2e72e991695f745d6419feeb77598f61d8c86a52 > > Should a similar update be made to poll(2) for ppoll? Yes. Done. And I made the same change in the description of epoll_pwait(). Thanks, Michael > If I'm reading the kernel source (fs/select.c) correctly, both syscalls > (pselect6 and ppoll) use a (possibly unfortunately named) "sigprocmask" > function to manipulate the signal mask, so their behavior should be the > same in this regard. > > Also, it might be nice to clarify that these changes are clarifications > of existing behavior, rather than new behavior (i.e. clarify the > clarification). The current situation is pretty confusing: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17011460/ppoll-vs-pselect-with-multiple-threads > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html