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 <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>, Tel. +49 (0)911 74053 2107 SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
