Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask

[Chris Wright]

* Jan Engelhardt (jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >Actually I take it the other way.  The wording is awful. But the "unless
> >SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being
> >delivered".  This looks to me that it adds the signal being delivered to
> >the blocked mask unless the SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set. I kind of
> >wonder if English is the native language of those that wrote this.  
> 
> So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+ 
> different behaviors the users out there favor most.

Rather, check what happens in practice on other implementations.  I don't
have Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, AIX, etc. boxen at hand, but some folks must.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/