Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] posix timers: don't discard the signal if the timer was explicitly destroyed

[Roland McGrath]

> I am not sure this patch is really needed, please review.

I don't think this is worth doing.

> The previous patch adds the user-visible change. It is not clear to me why
> should we cancel the pending signal sent by the timer after timer_delete().
> Suppose the signal is blocked, pending, the user checks sys_rt_sigpending(),
> destroys the timer and then doesn't see the signal.

So?  POSIX says it's unspecified what happens to such a signal, so an
application can't rely on it one way or the other.  I don't see any reason
to complicate it further.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/