Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > Hi Pádraig, > > I think that the only problem can raise when the sent signal is received > by the monitor process after the handler is reinstalled. In that case > the signal will be dispatched again to the process group. This can > repeat again and again until it is finally ignored by the monitor process. > > On http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/kill.html I > can see in the "Rationale" section: > "There was initially strong sentiment to specify that, if pid > specifies that a signal be sent to the calling process and that > signal is not blocked, that signal would be delivered before kill() > returns. This would permit a process to call kill() and be guaranteed > that the call never return. ...... Such modifications have the effect > of satisfying the stronger requirement, at least when sigaction() is > used, but not necessarily when signal() is used." > > So I guess the case I described before shouldn't happen.
Well found! From there: Implementors are encouraged to meet the stronger requirement [to deliver signal to calling process before kill() returns] whenever possible So it's probably fine, and seems so on Linux from my testing, but I don't think we should change it as I can't see any advantage. I'm worried about (older) platforms that don't implement this _recommendation_ What I will do is remove the FIXME comment and replace it with your comments. thanks, Pádraig. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils