From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mvj3P-0006Pp-LG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:48:31 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mvj3N-0006PW-QX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:48:30 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59509 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mvj3N-0006PM-GG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:48:29 -0400
Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.164]:56827 helo=akado.ru)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <av1474@comtv.ru>) id 1Mvj3N-0007R0-2l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:48:29 -0400
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:48:31 +0400 (MSD)
From: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Revert "posix-aio-compat: avoid signal
	race when spawning a thread"
In-Reply-To: <20091008014742.GA15601@shareable.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910080647510.2109@linmac.oyster.ru>
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>
	<20091008014742.GA15601@shareable.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

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?

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru