* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of
> > pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of
> > leaning towards Jeremy's original patch.
>
> It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the
> Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of
> pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of
> leaning towards Jeremy's original patch.
It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the first place, without my
patch we are violating POSIX, and
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> >Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
> >that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
> >This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that
Roland McGrath wrote:
>Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
>that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
>This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds
>{RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal (< SIGRTMIN)
Roland McGrath wrote:
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds
{RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal ( SIGRTMIN) not
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds
Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of
pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of
leaning towards Jeremy's original patch.
It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the first place, without my
patch we are violating POSIX, and
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of
pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of
leaning towards Jeremy's original patch.
It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the first place,
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to
> > > say
> > > that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
> >
> > How? I only see reference to
> * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
> > that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
>
> How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals?
> Just curious...(I've
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
> that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals?
Just curious...(I've only got SuSv3
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds
{RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal (< SIGRTMIN) not sent by
sigqueue
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds
{RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal ( SIGRTMIN) not sent by
sigqueue
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals?
Just curious...(I've only got SuSv3
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals?
Just curious...(I've only got
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to
say
that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well.
How? I only see reference to filling in
16 matches
Mail list logo
