[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080523014135.BDD2526FA24@magilla.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Austin Clements <amdragon+kernelbugzilla@....edu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if it is queued
> So. Let's suppose that (say) SIGHUP is pending, and the posix timer
> sends SIGHUP too. In that case the new SIGHUP is added, and if the
> previous one was infoless the new one "hides" it: collect_signal()
> won't see 2 distinct signals, it will find only 1 signal and clear
> the bit in sigpending->signal.
That is correct behavior. Signals < SIGRTMIN do not queue. (POSIX says
it's implementation-defined whether they do, and in Linux they don't.)
When a signal does not queue, it's unspecified whether the the one that
is ever actually seen is the first one or the last one (or any in between),
so the siginfo_t details showing the second one in your example is fine.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists