> I spent some time read you mail carefully and dig into the code again. > > And yes, you are right. It's possible that SA_ONSTACK has been cleared > before the second signal on the same stack comes.
It's not necessary for SA_ONSTACK to have "been cleared", by which I assume you mean a sigaction call with SA_ONSTACK not set in sa_flags. That is indeed possible, but it's not the only case your patch broke. It can just be a different signal whose sigaction never had SA_ONSTACK, when you are still on the signal stack from an earlier signal that did have SA_ONSTACK. > So this patch is wrong :( . I will revise the other 4 patches. For 2 and 3, I would rather just wait until we unify signal.c anyway. Thanks, Roland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
