Re: [patch] fsck.minix.c, mkfs.minix.c: use bsd_signal()

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>]

maximilian attems wrote:
> > This *did* turn out to be a reasonable thing to do, as most code out 
> > there that uses unadorned signal() appears to be BSD-derived.
> >
> > I specifically stated in the README for klibc that "if you want signal, 
> > compile with -Dsignal=bsd_signal or -Dsignal=sysv_signal".
>
> woow, thanks for the guidance.
> that went unnoticed in Debian/Ubuntu for all available klibc builds.
>
> will take care to have it set in the next upload, so don't have to
> bother karel with my stupid patch.
>  

I take that back.  I didn't, apparently.

It only says, in usr/klibc/CAVEATS:

bsd_signal vs sysv_signal:
--------------------------

There is no signal() call, because you never know if you want
Linux/SysV semantics (SA_RESETHAND) or GNU/BSD semantics (SA_RESTART).
The best, in *any* circumstances, is to never use signal() and instead
use sigaction(), but in order to simplify porting you can use either
sysv_signal() or bsd_signal(), depending on what you actually want.


Either way, the universe seems to have settled on BSD semantics, so 
perhaps it's time to do:

#ifndef signal
# define signal bsd_signal
#endif

What do you think?

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html