[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABeXuvqx9fZGiGSAQEE=7wechoGE0E8YW7icBWoTtXPkWPROUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 07:29:13 -0700
From: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"dbueso@...e.de" <dbueso@...e.de>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Eric Wong <e@...24.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Omar Kilani <omar.kilani@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error codes according to restore_user_sigmask()
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. You are taking things
out of context. I was saying here what I did was inspired by why the
syscall was designed to begin with. The syscall below refers to
epoll_wait and not epoll_pwait.
-Deepa
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:19 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/23, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> >
> > 1. block the signals you don't care about.
> > 2. syscall()
> > 3. unblock the signals blocked in 1.
>
> and even this part of your email is very confusing. because in this case
> we can never miss a signal. I'd say
>
> 1. block the signals you don't care about
> 2. unblock the signals which should interrupt the syscall below
> 3. syscall()
> 4. block the signals unblocked in 2.
>
> Oleg.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists