On Sunday 15 January 2012 14:50:24 Richard Braun wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 08:36:55PM +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > > I agree the use of signal() immediately disturbed me, but I didn't read > > its implementation. Maybe it does the job. In any case, we could use the > > occasion to fix that as well and replace signal() with sigaction() in > > the same patch. > > In addition, I wonder if the code in the parent immediately following > vfork(), which forces SIGINT and SIGQUIT to SIG_IGN once more, is really > useful. AIUI, this system call should have no effect on the parent > signal dispositions.
i think we can go ahead and rely on the real world at this point and say that the vfork() call did not screw with our signal() setup. i.e. go ahead and delete those two lines. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
