Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, marcel@scc.nl Subject: Re: HEADS UP: sigset_t changes committed Message-ID: <XFMail.990929120609.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199909291902.NAA24329@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote:
>> Following up on my previous mail regarding the panic on the Alpha,
>> I've been looking at the diff for the code in question, in
>> "src/sys/nfs/nfs_socket.c":
>>
>> @@ -1501,14 +1502,16 @@
>> struct nfsreq *rep;
>> register struct proc *p;
>> {
>> + sigset_t tmpset;
>>
>> + tmpset = p->p_siglist;
>> + SIGSETNAND(tmpset, p->p_sigmask);
>> + SIGSETNAND(tmpset, p->p_sigignore);
>> if (rep && (rep->r_flags & R_SOFTTERM))
>> return (EINTR);
>> if (!(nmp->nm_flag & NFSMNT_INT))
>> return (0);
>> - if (p && p->p_siglist &&
>> - (((p->p_siglist & ~p->p_sigmask) & ~p->p_sigignore) &
>> - NFSINT_SIGMASK))
>> + if (p && SIGNOTEMPTY(p->p_siglist) && NFSINT_SIGMASK(tmpset))
>> return (EINTR);
>> return (0);
>> }
>>
>> It looks like the old code was prepared for "p" to be NULL, but the
>> new code assumes it is non-NULL.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> - if (p && p->p_siglist &&
> - (((p->p_siglist & ~p->p_sigmask) & ~p->p_sigignore) &
> - NFSINT_SIGMASK))
> + if (p && SIGNOTEMPTY(p->p_siglist) && NFSINT_SIGMASK(tmpset))
>
> The
> if (p ....
>
> in both cases checks for an null p. Or, am I missing something?
You're missing the use of "p->p_siglist" that was added at the top
of the function.
John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990929120609.jdp>