Follow-up Comment #4, bug #49023 (project hurd):
Yes, that's what I meant. The relation is that HURD_PREEMPT_SIGNAL_P's first
argument is a struct hurd_signal_preemptor, so we'd be effectively changing
how that structure is interpreted. Its "first, last" range would now be
compared against
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 01:33:44AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I don't think we want to make /tmp use trustiness to determine whether
> to follow a translator or not. If as root I run
>
> settrans -c /tmp/foo /hurd/firmlink /some/where
>
> I'd expect only foo to be removed.
If we want to
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #49023 (project hurd):
I don't see the relation with HURD_PREEMPT_SIGNAL_P. Did you mean "is
there some code which relies on the previous semantic of detail->code?"
?
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #49023 (project hurd):
Is the signal preemption code used anywhere outside the C library?
If not, changing the parameter to HURD_PREEMPT_SIGNAL_P sounds like a good
solution.
___
Reply to this item at:
