Re: [PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)

* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hmm, I think you want this patch. You still need to check the return of > setting up the frames. Indeed, I noticecd just after I sent, and sent an updated patch. Thanks Steve! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"

[PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)

On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 13:49 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > > SA_NODEFER > [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's > signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in > sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal

[PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)

On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 13:49 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: SA_NODEFER [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal

Re: [PATCH] Fix i386 signal handling of NODEFER, should not affect sa_mask (was: Re: Signal handling possibly wrong)

* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hmm, I think you want this patch. You still need to check the return of setting up the frames. Indeed, I noticecd just after I sent, and sent an updated patch. Thanks Steve! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in