From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750709AbVHISiz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:38:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750792AbVHISiz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:38:55 -0400 Received: from mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.4.200]:43825 "EHLO mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750709AbVHISiy (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:38:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:39:49 -0400 From: Robert Wilkens Subject: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong In-reply-to: <42F8F6CC.7090709@fujitsu-siemens.com> To: Bodo Stroesser Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <1123612789.3167.9.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> <1123612016.3167.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42F8F6CC.7090709@fujitsu-siemens.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bodo, SA_MASK is a flag... Which you use to tell it what to do with the data you've given it and/or it gets. You gave it sa_mask (lower-case). SA_NOMASK means don't use the mask -- the pseudonym (new-word) for SA_NOMASK is SA_NODEFER (renamed, perhaps, because it may defer some or all signals rather than throwing them away, you probably can receive the waiting signals by clearing the SA_NODEFER flag on a subsequent call). If you want to take this off-list, I'm OK with that.. Please describe what you would expect SA_NODEFER to do in your own language if you don't understand what I seem to understand. -Rob On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 20:32 +0200, Bodo Stroesser wrote: > Robert Wilkens wrote: > >>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 > > Yes. That's true. > > But what about sa_mask? Description of SA_NODEFER and sa_mask both do not > say, that usage of sa_mask depends on SA_NODEFER. > But kernel only uses sa_mask, if SA_NODEFER isn't set. > > So, I think man page and kernel are not consistent. > > Bodo > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/