Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > On 05/30, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes: >> >> > Which means I believe we have a semantically valid change in behavior >> > that is causing a regression. >> >> I haven't made a survey of all of the functions yet but >> fucntions return -ENORESTARTNOHAND will never return -EINTR and are >> immune from this problem. > > Hmm. handle_signal: > > case -ERESTARTNOHAND: > regs->ax = -EINTR; > break; > > but I am not sure I understand which problem do you mean..
Yes. My mistake. I looked at the transparent restart case for when a signal is not pending and failed to look at what happens when a signal is delivered. So yes. Everything changed does appear to have a behavioral difference where they can now succeed and not return -EINTR. Eric
