From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264286AbTKZTxF (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:53:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264300AbTKZTxF (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:17025 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264286AbTKZTxD (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:53:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:52:45 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Bruce Perens , Ulrich Drepper , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler. Message-ID: <20031126195245.GF14383@mail.shareable.org> References: <20031126173953.GA3534@perens.com> <3FC4ED5F.4090901@perens.com> <3FC4EF24.9040307@perens.com> <3FC4F248.8060307@perens.com> <3FC4F94F.6030801@perens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > I personally think it is "good taste" to actually set the SA_NODEFER flag > if you know you depend on the behaviour, but if there are lots of existing > applications that actually depend on the "forced punch-through" behaviour, > then I'll obviously have to change the 2.6.x behaviour (a stable > user-level ABI is a lot more important than my personal preferences). I also have a program which depends on the behaviour of nesting SIGSEGVs, however luckily I already set the SA_NODEFER flag :) -- Jamie