Re: [PATCH 0/5] replace signal() with sigaction()

On 28/05/14 19:40, Johannes Sixt wrote:

Am 5/28/2014 8:14, schrieb Jeremiah Mahler:

quoted

From signal(2)

  The behavior of signal() varies across UNIX versions, and has also var‐
  ied historically across different versions of Linux.   Avoid  its  use:
  use sigaction(2) instead.  See Portability below.

This patch set replaces calls to signal() with sigaction() in all files
except sigchain.c.  sigchain.c is a bit more complicated than the others
and will be done in a separate patch.

In compat/mingw.c we have:

int sigaction(int sig, struct sigaction *in, struct sigaction *out)
{
	if (sig != SIGALRM)
		return errno = EINVAL,
			error("sigaction only implemented for SIGALRM");
	if (out != NULL)
		return errno = EINVAL,
			error("sigaction: param 3 != NULL not implemented");

	timer_fn = in->sa_handler;
	return 0;
}

Notice "only implemented for SIGALRM". Are adding the missing signals
somewhere (here or in a later patch)?

* note: not a windows/mingw programmer *

Will the ones setting SIG_IGN be OK? Presumably we won't get these
signals on windows anyway so we're already getting what we want.

quoted

Jeremiah Mahler (5):
  progress.c: replace signal() with sigaction()
  daemon.c run_service(): replace signal() with sigaction()
  daemon.c child_handler(): replace signal() with sigaction()
  daemon.c service_loop(): replace signal() with sigaction()
  connect.c: replace signal() with sigaction()

 connect.c  |  5 ++++-
 daemon.c   | 15 ++++++++++++---
 progress.c |  6 +++++-
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Isn't this a bit too much of code churn, given that there were no bug
reports where signal handling is identified as the culprit despite
the warning you cited above?

-- Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html