On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:23 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > This change looks more complicated to me than necessary. Have you
> > > considered
> > > to pass an empty signal set as the fourth ppoll() argument?
> > 
> > An empty set would mean that no signal is blocked during ppoll().
> > Therefore e.g. SIGALRM would terminate multipathd if it arrives
> > during the ppoll (no handler set, and default action is "Term").
> 
> Have you considered to only block SIGALRM while ppoll() is in
> progress?

Why should we? The same reasoning applies to other signals such as e.g.
SIGUSR2. We need to block all signals except those that we can handle.

Regards,
Martin

-- 
Dr. Martin Wilck <mwi...@suse.com>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imend├Ârffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N├╝rnberg)

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Reply via email to