Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:37:55 +0100 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 111194 for review Message-ID: <20061207103755.GA38924@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <20061207080829.1vs0y9xxwsc8kkck@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <200612061323.kB6DNgsn098612@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061207080829.1vs0y9xxwsc8kkck@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:08:29AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 6 Dec 2006 > 13:23:42 GMT): > > >http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=111194 > > > >Change 111194 by rdivacky@rdivacky_witten on 2006/12/06 13:23:04 > > > > Add an XXX comment about signal delivery in linux_exit_group. > > We currently ignore sending a signal if SIGNAL_EXIT_GROUP is set > > condition. We dont even implement this flag.... > > What about a printf in case the flag is set? This way we should notice > if it is used somewhere. We could also correlate this with application > misbehavior. we dont even implement the functionality of the flag.. I quickly looked at the linux source and I dont understand much what its good for any when its set... looks like when coredumping etc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061207103755.GA38924>