From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mvi6s-0007tz-Ka
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:48:02 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mvi6n-0007sW-7C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:48:01 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48777 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mvi6n-0007sJ-3A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:47:57 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:58105)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1Mvi6m-0004yF-Kb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:47:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 02:47:42 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Revert "posix-aio-compat: avoid signal
	race when spawning a thread"
Message-ID: <20091008014742.GA15601@shareable.org>
References: <20091007132006.GA9668@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910072000090.2178@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<4ACCC1A5.5020306@codemonkey.ws> <20091007204421.GC4085@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910080053350.4678@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<20091007205523.GA4783@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910080059550.4776@linmac.oyster.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910080059550.4776@linmac.oyster.ru>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

malc wrote:
> > 	The  use of sigprocmask() is unspecified in a
> > 	multithreaded process; see pthread_sigmask(3).
> > 
> > Does it matter?
> 
> One of the patches i've asked you to try today replaced sigprocmask with
> pthread_sigmask, you've said it did nothing. In any case, strictly
> speaking, the code is wrong, so yes it does matter in theory.

It won't matter on a Linux host (they are the same), but
pthread_sigmask should be used because it's Right(tm) and it could
make a difference on some other host.

-- Jamie