wangchdo commented on PR #17352:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17352#issuecomment-3568639917

   > > When signals are disabled, the related POSIX APIs—including sleep, 
usleep, kill, pkill, and pthread—will be disabled as well.
   > 
   > It's too limit that sleep/usleep can't be called when 
CONFIG_DISABLE_SIGNALS equals true, so I would suggest that this feature should 
be done by level:
   > 
   > 1. disable all signal related functionality like this pr
   > 2. disable signal function related to signal handler(callback), but  keep 
other simple but frequnctly used function(e.g. wait/sigwait/ppoll).
   > 3. enable all signal functionality like before
   
   Upon reconsideration, I prefer to only allow disabling all signal-related 
functionality, and re-implement the signal-dependent functions such as 
sleep()/usleep() using the newly added scheduler-based sleep APIs.
   
   This approach is clearer and safer. If we allow disabling only part of the 
signal subsystem, we would need to modify the implementations of the remaining 
signal functions. At the same time, we cannot guarantee that those functions 
will continue to behave exactly as before. Even worse, it becomes harder for 
users to understand the actual impact of partially disabling signal features.
   
   With PR #17200  introducing scheduler-based sleep support, and PR #17204  
replacing all signal-based sleep implementations in drivers and the filesystem 
with scheduler-based versions, the overall dependency on signals has already 
been significantly reduced.
   
   We can re-implement the libc sleep()/usleep() functions using the new API 
added by PR #17368. This will be more lightweight compared to the current 
signal-based wait mechanism.
   
   
   
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to