On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:07:38PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
> On 28/05/14 18:14, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> > From signal(2)
> >
> > The behavior of signal() varies across UNIX versions, and has also var‐
> > ied historically across different versions of Linux. Avoid its use:
> > use sigaction(2) instead. See Portability below.
>
> Minor nit. The last sentence applies to the man page you're quoting and
> doesn't really make sense when viewed in the context of this commit
> message. Same applies to other patches in this series.
>
Yes, that is confusing.
...
> > @@ -66,8 +66,12 @@ static void set_progress_signal(void)
> > static void clear_progress_signal(void)
> > {
> > struct itimerval v = {{0,},};
> > + struct sigaction sa;
> > +
> > + memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
> > + sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
>
> A C99 initialiser here would save the call to memset. Unfortunately
> Documentation/CodingGuidelines is fairly clear on not using C99
> initialisers, given the fact we're now at git 2.0 maybe it's time to
> revisit this policy?
>
struct sigaction sa = { .sa_handler = SIG_IGN };
I do like that.
This brings up another issue. memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa)); The sigaction
examples I have seen always use memset. The manpage for sigaction(2)
doesn't mention it. Other code it Git uses memset with sigaction (see
fast-import.c line 530).
Is this struct guaranteed to be initialized to zero so I don't have to
use memset?
--
Jeremiah Mahler
jmmahler@xxxxxxxxx
http://github.com/jmahler
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html