This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:45:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove signal handling for nanosleep (bug 16364)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1447023171-31542-1-git-send-email-adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot com> <56405109 dot 9070404 at redhat dot com> <56408F14 dot 1040600 at linaro dot org>
On 11/09/2015 01:18 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
>
> On 09-11-2015 05:53, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 11/08/2015 11:52 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>> Linux 2.6.32 and forward do not show the issue regarding SysV SIGCHLD
>>> vs. SIG_IGN for nanosleep which make it feasible to use it for sleep
>>> implementation without requiring any hacking to handle the spurious
>>> wake up. This patch simplifies the sleep code to call nanosleep
>>> directly.
>>>
>>> Checked on x86_64, ppc64le, and aarch64.
>>
>> Do you know the kernel commit which fixed this?
>
> I tried to track down the specific commit that fixed it, but I was unable
> to pin it down. uClibc developers also seemed to do same [1], but also
> they could not find out the exact commit (which I think might be the reason
> they are using glibc strategy still). musl uses plain nanosleep as the
> patch.
>
> [1] http://git.uclibc.org/uClibc/tree/libc/unistd/sleep.c
Could you write a glibc test case for this? I don't feel comfortable
with removing the workaround without a test, and I can't find an
existing one.
Thanks,
Florian