Since I didn't get any negative feedback, can I take that it's okay to commit the change ?
-Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Mathihalli, Madhusudan >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:09 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [PATCH] New api's apr_block_signal and apr_unblock_signal > > >>> Since a lot of the async signals are blocked by >default, I thought >>> it'll be good to provide a apr_(un)block_signal() api for >those who want >>> to block/unblock only select signals. Here's a patch to do that. >> >>Is this portable? (Admitting my ignorance of the Win32 API here.) > >I also have to admit my ignorance of beos and os2. Both of >them include the code in unix/signals.c. There are no new >system calls introduced apart from what is already existing in >unix/signals.c. The new library calls are sigaddset() and >sigemptymask(). These functions should be available on all >system that have sigdelset() / sigfillmask(). Hence, I believe >the code itself is as portable as the rest of the code in >unix/signals.c. > >I did not see any specific handling of the signals for Win32 >and Netware. If somebody could evaluate the need for the >block/unblock feature on those systems, that'll be great. > >>PS: the names should be apr_signal_block and >apr_signal_unblock instead. > >Sure ! > >-Madhu > >
