From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MwDOj-0007YL-5p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:12:33 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MwDOe-0007Sl-3U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:12:32 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MwDOd-0007SW-Tp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:12:27 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:53763)
	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 1MwDOd-00015S-JE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:12:27 -0400
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:12:13 +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: <20091009111213.GE6576@shareable.org>
References: <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>
	<20091008014742.GA15601@shareable.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910080647510.2109@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<20091008151527.GB29691@shareable.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910082039090.2168@linmac.oyster.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910082039090.2168@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:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 
> > malc wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > What made you think i'm of a different opinion?
> > 
> > The fact you asked Michael to test a patch which replaced sigprocmask
> > with pthread_sigmask.
> 
> That made you think i'm somehow in favour of sigprocmask? I'm confused.

It didn't make me think you're in favour of sigprocmask.

It made me think you thought there was a difference between them that
would affect the bug.

Anyways, I think we're done with this subthread :-)

-- Jamie