On 2019-02-26 17:38:22 [+0100], Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Oleg, > Sorry, I just noticed your email... no worries. > > So I assumed that while SIGUSR1 is handled SIGUSR2 will wait until the > > current signal is handled. So no interruption. But then SIGSEGV is > > probably the exception which will interrupt SIGUSR1. So we would need a > > third one… > > I guess you do not need my answer, but just in case. > > SIGSEGV is not an exception. A SIGUSR1 handler can be interrupted by any other > signal which is not included in sigaction->sa_mask. Even SIGUSR1 can interrupt > the handler if SA_NODEFER was used. okay, understood. My understanding was that since signal sending is not very deterministic and as such you can't reliably control if one signal arrived before the other finished it should not matter. But well, this all is gone now… Thank you for the explanation. > Oleg. Sebastian
