This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Describe issues with cancellation points in signal handlers.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, linux-man <linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2019 22:17:29 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch] Describe issues with cancellation points in signal handlers.
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 10/5/19 7:48 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Carlos,
> On 10/5/19 12:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> In a recent conversation with Mathieu Desnoyers I was reminded
>> that we haven't written up anything about how deferred cancellation
>> and asynchronous signal handlers interact. Mathieu ran into some
>> of this behaviour and I promised to improve the documentation in
>> this area to point out the potential pitfall.
> I've applied this. If some review comments come it, I can
> tweak the text.
Thank you! I tried hard to keep the "asynchronous signal" and
"deferred cancellation" terms all consistent. It's all a bit of
a mouthful, so I'd be happy if we could have come up with simpler
language, but it's hard to write it any simpler without loosing
the exactitude of what I'm trying to say. I'm happy to see future
edits that simplify the language. At the very least we now say
something about this corner case so people aren't caught off guard.