On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
> we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction,
> but it's not used for anything whatsoever. There's also a separately
> passed restorer pointer for rt_sigaction() and *that* is used instead,
> but not reported via *oact.
>
> What's the reason for that weirdness? I understand why we do that on
> alpha (we have no sa_restorer in struct sigaction we'd inherited from
> OSF/1), but sparc always had perfectly normal sigaction->sa_restorer
> field all along - even for old sigaction(2)...
PS: speaking of weirdness, what's the reason for sparc and ppc (and nothing
else) expecting the first argument of sigaction(2) to be minus signal
number? ABI archaeology is fun...
--
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
