From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964921AbVHISZt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:25:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964922AbVHISZt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:25:49 -0400 Received: from mta10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.4.205]:25190 "EHLO mta10.srv.hcvlny.cv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964921AbVHISZs (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:25:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:26:56 -0400 From: Robert Wilkens Subject: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong In-reply-to: <42F8EB66.8020002@fujitsu-siemens.com> To: Bodo Stroesser Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <1123612016.3167.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <42F8EB66.8020002@fujitsu-siemens.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Kernel code blocks both "handled signal" _and_ sa_mask only if SA_NODEFER > isn't set. > > Which is the right behavior? Perhaps both? I'm novice here, but if i'm reading the man page correctly, it says: SA_NODEFER Do not prevent the signal from being received from within its own signal handler. (they also imply that SA_NOMASK is the old name for this, which might make it clear what it's use is). In which case blocking (masking) when it's not set is exactly what it's supposed to do. -Rob