On Aug 12, 2005, at 17:53:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Two more systems that are different from Linux.
So far, Linux is the odd ball out.
Make that three more systems (Mac OS X has the same behavior as the
BSDs):
zeus:~ kyle$ uname -a
Darwin zeus.moffetthome.net 8.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.
On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 21:31 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > >
> > I've got a 4-way pSeries p550 running AIX 5.3 here :
> >
> > $ uname -s -M -p -v -r
> > AIX 3 5 powerpc IBM,9113-550
> >
> > Output from your program :
> >
> > $ ./a.out
> > Un
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+
> > > different behaviors the users out there fa
Two more systems that are different from Linux.
So far, Linux is the odd ball out.
-- Steve
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 22:28 +0100, someone else wrote:
>
> SunOS hostname 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000
>
> sa_mask blocks other signals
> SA_NODEFER does not block other signals
> SA_N
I received this from someone. I'm BCCing him since he didn't email to
the LKML himself (for some reason, maybe he doesn't want spam), I'll
protect his identity. If he wants to take credit, he should CC everyone.
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 13:16 -0700, Someone wrote:
> DU4
> ===
> [3] uname -a
> OSF1 h
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 21:31 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >
> I've got a 4-way pSeries p550 running AIX 5.3 here :
>
> $ uname -s -M -p -v -r
> AIX 3 5 powerpc IBM,9113-550
>
> Output from your program :
>
> $ ./a.out
> Unknown return code!!
> Unknown return code!!
> Unknown return code!!
> Unk
On 8/12/05, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+
> > > different behaviors the users out there favor most.
> >
> > Rather, chec
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> I've supplied this before, but I'll send it again. Attached is a program
> that should show the behavior of the sigaction. If someone has one of the
> above mentioned boxes, please run this on the box and send back the
> results.
Here it is again.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+
> > different behaviors the users out there favor most.
>
> Rather, check what happens in practice on other implementations. I don't
> ha
>Actually I take it the other way. The wording is awful. But the "unless
>SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being
>delivered". This looks to me that it adds the signal being delivered to
>the blocked mask unless the SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set. I kind of
>won
* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Actually I take it the other way. The wording is awful. But the "unless
> >SA_NODEFER or SA_RESETHAND is set, and then including the signal being
> >delivered". This looks to me that it adds the signal being delivered to
> >the blocked mask unless th
Linus Torvalds wrote:
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 t
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 23:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> memset(&act,0,sizeof(act));
> sigaddset(&act.sa_mask,SIGUSR1);
> ret = testsig(&act,SIGUSR1,SIGUSR1);
> if (ret == 1) {
> printf("sa_mask does not block sig\n");
> } else if (ret == 0)
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 14:27 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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_NO
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 ac
If this is indeed the way things should work. I'll go ahead and fix all
the other architectures.
-- Steve
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.13-rc6-git1/arch/ppc/kernel/signal.c.orig 2005-08-09
17:00:43.0 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc6-git1/arch/ppc/kernel/signa
16 matches
Mail list logo
