From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762253AbYDVTJa (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:09:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753243AbYDVTJW (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:09:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:54776 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752761AbYDVTJV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:09:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Oleg Nesterov X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus Cc: Andrew Morton , Austin Clements , Ingo Molnar , john stultz , Michael Kerrisk , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] posix timers: don't discard the signal if the timer was explicitly destroyed In-Reply-To: Oleg Nesterov's message of Tuesday, 22 April 2008 19:38:21 +0400 <20080422153821.GA19903@tv-sign.ru> References: <20080422153821.GA19903@tv-sign.ru> X-Antipastobozoticataclysm: Bariumenemanilow Message-Id: <20080422190849.6443E270381@magilla.localdomain> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I am not sure this patch is really needed, please review. I don't think this is worth doing. > The previous patch adds the user-visible change. It is not clear to me why > should we cancel the pending signal sent by the timer after timer_delete(). > Suppose the signal is blocked, pending, the user checks sys_rt_sigpending(), > destroys the timer and then doesn't see the signal. So? POSIX says it's unspecified what happens to such a signal, so an application can't rely on it one way or the other. I don't see any reason to complicate it further. Thanks, Roland