From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265222AbUF1VtY (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:49:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265229AbUF1VtY (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:49:24 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:40091 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265222AbUF1VtW (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:49:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Morton cc: Davide Libenzi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] signal handler defaulting fix ... In-Reply-To: <20040628144003.40c151ff.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20040628144003.40c151ff.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Davide Libenzi 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