From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264288AbTKZTeR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:34:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264297AbTKZTeR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:34:17 -0500 Received: from dsl-sj-66-219-74-27.broadviewnet.net ([66.219.74.27]:3715 "EHLO server.perens.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264288AbTKZTeN (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:34:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3FC50029.7030706@perens.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:34:01 -0800 From: Bruce Perens User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Posix says "undefined". Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler. References: <20031126173953.GA3534@perens.com> <3FC4ED5F.4090901@perens.com> <3FC4EF24.9040307@perens.com> <3FC4F248.8060307@perens.com> <3FC4F94F.6030801@perens.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus, Posix says the behavior is undefined. See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/sigprocmask.html . I think it makes sense to leave the 2.6 behavior as it is. Thanks Bruce 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). > >But if ElectricFence is the only thing that cares, I'd rather just EF >added a SA_NODEFER.. > >