Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:34:56 +0800
From: "David Xu" <davidxu@viatech.com.cn>
To: <deischen@freebsd.org>, "David Xu" <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
Subject: Re: First draft: rewrite of {get|set|swap}context(3)
Message-ID: <001a01c36539$b1a6dd70$f001a8c0@davidwnt>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308172306080.29967-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com>
To: "David Xu" <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: <threads@freebsd.org>; "Marcel Moolenaar" <marcel@xcllnt.net>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: First draft: rewrite of {get|set|swap}context(3)
> >
> > Then doesn't signal context in signal handler have a UCF_SIGMASK ?
> >
> > void (*__sa_sigaction)(int, struct __siginfo *, ucontext_t *ucp);
> > the context *ucp should have UCF_SIGMASK now.
> > I think it should be UCF_NOSIGMASK. But for libkse, we really needn't
>
> I think so too.
>
> > this kind of hack, because M:N thread in kernel always masks all signals,
> > you can always SIGFILLSET(&uc.uc_sigmask) before call set_context.
>
> That works for M:N, but not when THR_GETCONTEXT() (and perhaps
> someday THR_SETCONTEXT()) is used for a scope system thread.
> Hmm, this wouldn't seem to result in a context that needs to
> be restored by the syscall though.
>
I just think UCF_SIGMASK is not asked by POSIX, also we can always
set a right signal mask for scope system thread, I am not objecting the flag,
but it is not a must-have thing for current libkse.
> --
> Dan Eischen
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001a01c36539$b1a6dd70$f001a8c0>