Re: A signal fairy tale

From: Christopher Smith (
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 03:18:10 EST

At 07:49 PM 6/27/2001 -0700, Daniel R. Kegel wrote:
>Balbir Singh <> wrote:
> >sigopen() should be selective about the signals it allows
> >as argument. Try and make sigopen() thread specific, so that if one
> >thread does a sigopen(), it does not imply it will do all the signal
> >handling for all the threads.
>IMHO sigopen()/read() should behave just like sigwait() with respect
>to threads. That means that in Posix, it would not be thread specific,
>but in Linux, it would be thread specific, because that's how signals
>and threads work there at the moment.

Actually, I believe with IBM's new Posix threads implementation, Linux
finally does signal delivery "the right way". In general, I think it'd be
nice if this API *always* sucked up signals from all threads. This makes
sense particularly since the FD is accessible by all threads.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:21 EST