From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 11 June 2019 19:56 > On 06/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > Personally I don't think anyone sane would intentionally depend on this > > and I don't think there is a sufficiently reliable way to depend on this > > by accident that people would actually be depending on it. > > Agreed. > > As I said I like these changes and I see nothing wrong. To me they fix the > current behaviour, or at least make it more consistent. > > But perhaps this should be documented in the changelog? To make it clear > that this change was intentional. What happens if you run the test program I posted yesterday after the changes? It looks like pselect() and epoll_pwait() operated completely differently. pselect() would always calls the signal handlers. epoll_pwait() only calls them when EINTR is returned. So changing epoll_pwait() and pselect() to work the same way is bound to break some applications. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
