Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:22:53 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@richardsharpe.com> Subject: Re: Is it possible to block pending queued RealTime signals (AIO originating)? Message-ID: <50ECE28D.4080308@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1301082208560.19271@sea.ntplx.net> References: <1357608470.6752.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <50EB888A.2030802@freebsd.org> <1357626838.6752.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <50EBC480.8000306@freebsd.org> <1357661646.6752.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1357686894.6752.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1301082208560.19271@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013/01/09 11:14, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Richard Sharpe wrote: > >> [ ... ] >> >> Well, it turns out that your suggestion was correct. >> >> I did some more searching and found another similar suggestion, so I >> gave it a whirl, and it works. >> >> Now, my problem is that Jeremy Allison thinks that it is a fugly hack. >> This means that I will probably have big problems getting a patch for >> this into Samba. > > I don't understand why JA thinks this is a hack. Their current > method doesn't work, or at least isn't portable. I've tried this > on Solaris 10, and it works just as it does in FreeBSD. Test > program included after signature. > > $ ./test_sigprocmask > Sending signal 16 > Got signal 16, blocked: true > Blocking signal 16 using method 0 > Handled signal 16, blocked: false > > Sending signal 16 > Got signal 16, blocked: true > Blocking signal 16 using method 1 > Handled signal 16, blocked: true > Yeah, people think that signal handler is normal code, this is a misunderstanding, in fact, it really works like an interrupt service routine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50ECE28D.4080308>