On 04/25, Al Viro wrote: > > Point... Still, since we are talking about an arbitrary wide window (the > damn thing is waiting for signals to arrive, after all) this doesn't > sound good; > ... > IMO it's > a QoI problem at the very least. and looks confusing, agreed. > As for SA_RESTART/!SA_RESTART mixes, if SA_RESTART comes first we should > just take that restart and pretend that the second signal has arrived at > the very beginning of handler, I think. Yes. My point was, this confuses the user-space developers too. And this case is equally unclear to me wrt should we (at least try to) change this or not. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
