Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-24 Thread Chris Wright
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of > > pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of > > leaning towards Jeremy's original patch. > > It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the first

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-24 Thread Roland McGrath
> Yeah, it fixes the issue, but opens the door to larger consumption of > pending signals. Roland, what was your final preference? I'm kind of > leaning towards Jeremy's original patch. It's not a matter of preference. As I said in the first place, without my patch we are violating POSIX, and d

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-24 Thread Chris Wright
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Roland McGrath wrote: > > >Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say > >that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. > >This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceed

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-24 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Roland McGrath wrote: >Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say >that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. >This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds >{RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal (< SIGRTMIN)

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-23 Thread Chris Wright
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to > > > say > > > that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. > > > > How? I only see reference to

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-23 Thread Roland McGrath
> * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say > > that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. > > How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals? > Just curious...(I've onl

Re: [PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-23 Thread Chris Wright
* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say > that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. How? I only see reference to filling in SI_USER for rt signals? Just curious...(I've only got SuSv3

[PATCH] override RLIMIT_SIGPENDING for non-RT signals

2005-02-23 Thread Roland McGrath
Indeed, I think your patch does not go far enough. I can read POSIX to say that the siginfo_t data must be available when `kill' was used, as well. This patch makes it allocate the siginfo_t, even when that exceeds {RLIMIT_SIGPENDING}, for any non-RT signal (< SIGRTMIN) not sent by sigqueue (actua