Re: [patch] signal handler defaulting fix ...

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Following up from the other thread (2.6.x signal handler bug) this bring 
> > 2.4 behaviour in 2.6.
> > 
> 
> Pity the poor person who tries to understand this change in a year's time. 
> Could we have a real changelog please?

Also, do we really care? The 2.6.x behaviour is nicer in that it tends to
kill programs more abruptly, while 2.4.x will just let a blocked signal
through - possibly letting the program continue, but causing "impossible"  
bugs in user space.

I don't think we've had any complaints about the 2.6.x behaviour apart
from the initial discussion a few months ago. I'd much rather have a
debuggable "kill a program that tries to block a synchronous interrupt",
than a potentially totally un-debuggable "let the signal through".

		Linus