Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:54:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:54:45 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:63096 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:54:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:04:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200302122204.h1CM4RZ24628@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Subject: Re: another subtle signals issue In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of Wednesday, 12 February 2003 13:42:58 -0800 X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus X-Zippy-Says: Hold the MAYO & pass the COSMIC AWARENESS... Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 883 Lines: 18 > Hmm.. We could move the blocking test down, and only consider that for the > "SIG_DFL" case. That is the same resultant behavior as my last patch, though your patch changed only as you've just described would leave the signal in the queue though not wake anyone. That differs in practice only if someone calls recalc_sigpending_tsk on some blocked threads for some reason. > The function I did matches what the old signal code did, but the more > signals we can truly ignore, the better. I dunno. Once modified to work in the MT case the same as in the no-thread-groups case, either way is fine by the spec and by me. Your call. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/