From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan  9 03:24:17 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBD0E24;
 Wed,  9 Jan 2013 03:24:17 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D52E0E;
 Wed,  9 Jan 2013 03:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
 by mail.netplex.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id r093OFhG013579;
 Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:24:15 -0500
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net)
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
 milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]);
 Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:24:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:24:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@richardsharpe.com>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to block pending queued RealTime signals (AIO
 originating)?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1301082208560.19271@sea.ntplx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1301082218510.19271@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:24:17 -0000

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 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

Weird - I just tested it on Linux (2.6.18-238.el5) and it works
the same as FreeBSD and Solaris.  Am I misunderstanding something?
Is it possible that Samba's code is broken on all platforms?

-- 
DE