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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 04/22, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > 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,

Ah, good!

> so an
> application can't rely on it one way or the other.  I don't see any reason
> to complicate it further.

Agreed, please ignore this patch.

Thanks! I really hoped you will nack this, I hate the additional complications
too.

Oleg.

--
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/