On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > If this is indeed the way things should work. I'll go ahead and fix all > the other architectures.
It does appear that this is what the standards describe in the section quoted by Chris. On the other hand, the standard seems to be a bit confused according to google: "This mask is formed by taking the union of the current signal mask and the value of the sa_mask for the signal being delivered unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being delivered. If and when the user's signal handler returns normally, the original signal mask is restored." Quite frankly, the way I read it is actually the old Linux behaviour: the "unless SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set" seems to be talking about the whole union of the sa_mask thing, _not_ just the "and the signal being delivered" part. Exactly the way the kernel currently does (except we should apparently _also_ do it for SA_RESETHAND). So if we decide to change the kernel behaviour, I'd like this to be in -mm for a while before merging (or merge _very_ early after 2.6.13). I could imagine this confusing some existing binaries that had only been tested with the old Linux behaviour, regardless of what a standard says. Especially since the standard itself is so confusing and badly worded. Maybe somebody can tell what other systems do, since I assume the standard is trying to describe behaviour that actually exists in the wild.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/