Hello Luis,
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Luis Javier Merino <ninjalj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure on the meaning of the following excerpt from
> siginterrupt(3), in particular the last sentence:
>
> "If the flag argument is false (0), then system
> calls will be restarted if interrupted by the specified signal sig. This is
> the default behavior in Linux. However, when a new signal handler is
> specified with the signal(2) function, the system call is interrupted by
> default."
>
> I interpret the second sentence ("This is the default behavior in
> Linux") as meaning that signal(2) by default is equivalent to
> sigaction(2) with SA_RESTART set. The last sentence seems to mean the
> opposite, which is untrue in the default case. So, what was the intent
> of that sentence?
>
> I came across this on a question at StackOverflow:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5929309/recvfrom-timeout-with-alarm/5929386#5929386
> the "wrongness" of the manpage was first noticed by Zachary Weinberg.
I would guess that the sentence cam about because of someone's
confusion with the signal(2) system call versus the glibc wrapper (or
the siginterrupt(3) page was written long ago in libc[45] days; see
the signal(2) man page).
The simple solution is to remove the last sentence for man-pages-3.33,
and that's what I have done for man-pages-3.33.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
