Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:50:00 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, rmh@aybabtu.com Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/92362: [headers] [patch] Missing SIGPOLL in kernel headers Message-ID: <AANLkTi=%2B6hDbhdfZsxsM%2B1uYQOnOZhsxk-Sz46MHD0Ks@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The OP's claim is wrong. SIGIO is a signal that can be discarded,
whereas SIGPOLL by definition terminates processes.
From SUSv7 (pardon the poor formatting):
The following signals shall be supported on all implementations
(default actions are explained below the table):
Signal Default Action Description
SIGPOLL T Pollable event.
T
Abnormal termination of the process. The process is terminated
with all the consequences of _exit() except that the status made
available to wait() and waitpid() indicates abnormal termination by
the specified signal.
From signal(3) (pardon the poor formatting):
23 SIGIO discard signal I/O is possible on a descriptor
(see fcntl(2))
SIGPOLL is actually somewhere between SIGIO and SIGIOT (SIBABRT),
but there isn't a 1:1 mapping for the signal definition. This is also
XSI Stream specific (which is not [fully] implemented in [Free]BSD).
SIGIO is also used by fcntl(2) to denote when I/O is available, but
this connotation is not noted in SUSv7 either.
This item should probably be closed as WONTFIX as we don't
implement SIGPOLL in its proper form.
Thanks,
-Garrett
PS FWIW GNU/Linux needs to be educated on the fact that SIGIO is a
discardable signal on other platforms and not an alias for SIGPOLL on
BSD (especially when they use it as an alias but don't document the
requirement >:(...), because a quick look at some glibc and Linux
headers shows that they are using them as a 1:1 mapping (I am using
Fedora 13 as a reference).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=%2B6hDbhdfZsxsM%2B1uYQOnOZhsxk-Sz46MHD0Ks>