Re: another subtle signals issue

From: Roland McGrath (
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 17:04:27 EST

> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:45 EST