On Sat, 03 Mar 2018 23:18:46 +0000
"Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietl...@skarnet.org> wrote:

> >Not all systems have SA_RESTART, but signal_SA_RESTART_empty_mask()
> >is required to build busybox. This at least allows you to build on
> >systems without SA_RESTART.  
> 
>   SA_RESTART is POSIX, and supported at the very least on Linux,
> Free/Open/NetBSD, MacOS and Solaris. What system is there that busybox
> officially supports and that doesn't have SA_RESTART?
> 
>   If you want to support the absence of SA_RESTART, the patch you sent
> is insufficient anyway. For correctness, you would need to find all
> the places in busybox where signal handlers are installed and an
> interruptible libc function is called, and if the system doesn't have
> SA_RESTART, wrap those calls in loops to manually restart them on
> EINTR. It's the only way to ensure consistent behaviour.
> 
> --
>   Laurent

Sorry I didn't answer earlier, but it turns out almost all the busybox
messages are going in my spam folder :( This is fixed; busybox is on
the whitelist.

I don't want to support the absence of SA_RESTART. With my
configuration I will never call signal_SA_RESTART_empty_mask(), so I
just need to get signals.c compiling.

It was easier to patch signal_SA_RESTART_empty_mask() than to keep track
of all new instances of SA_RESTART. sSRem() is not called that much.

But I sent this patch out to get feedback. I think I have another way
to fix this, so this patch can be safely dropped.

Cheers,
    Sean
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to