[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-tar] SA_RESTART, perhaps?

From: Kevin Fox
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] SA_RESTART, perhaps?
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:12:21 -0700

On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 13:48 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/27/11 13:40, Kevin Fox wrote:
> >  you don't
> > need that patch at all since the code already handles that case, without
> > the patch
> I'm not worried about that 'read' call.  I'm worried about the
> dozens or hundreds of other system calls scattered all over 'tar'
> and the libraries that 'tar' uses.

Ah. Fair enough. I stand corrected.

> The signal handler in question is a relatively recent change to
> 'tar', and I expect that it'll be a more-innocuous change if it's
> used with SA_RESTART.


This snippet from the Interrupted-Primitives doc might be of help too:

If you define _BSD_SOURCE or _GNU_SOURCE before calling signal, the
default is to resume primitives; otherwise, the default is to make them
fail with EINTR. (The library contains alternate versions of the signal
function, and the feature test macros determine which one you really
call.) See Feature Test Macros.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]