On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > So, if in doubt what is really meant - check which of the two/three/+ > > > different behaviors the users out there favor most. > > > > Rather, check what happens in practice on other implementations. I don't > > have Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, AIX, etc. boxen at hand, but some folks must. > > > > I've supplied this before, but I'll send it again. Attached is a program > that should show the behavior of the sigaction. If someone has one of the > above mentioned boxes, please run this on the box and send back the > results. This is from NetBSD 2.0: sa_mask blocks other signals SA_NODEFER does not block other signals SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask SA_NODEFER and sa_mask does not block sig !SA_NODEFER blocks sig SA_NODEFER does not block sig sa_mask blocks sig This is from SFU 3.5 on WinXP (*): sa_mask blocks other signals SA_NODEFER does not block other signals SA_NODEFER does not affect sa_mask SA_NODEFER and sa_mask blocks sig !SA_NODEFER blocks sig SA_NODEFER blocks sig sa_mask blocks sig (*) original signal.h did not define SA_NODEFER, so take this with a grain of salt Marc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
