Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:06:09 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, marcel@scc.nl Subject: Re: HEADS UP: sigset_t changes committed Message-ID: <XFMail.990929120609.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199909291902.NAA24329@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: >> Following up on my previous mail regarding the panic on the Alpha, >> I've been looking at the diff for the code in question, in >> "src/sys/nfs/nfs_socket.c": >> >> @@ -1501,14 +1502,16 @@ >> struct nfsreq *rep; >> register struct proc *p; >> { >> + sigset_t tmpset; >> >> + tmpset = p->p_siglist; >> + SIGSETNAND(tmpset, p->p_sigmask); >> + SIGSETNAND(tmpset, p->p_sigignore); >> if (rep && (rep->r_flags & R_SOFTTERM)) >> return (EINTR); >> if (!(nmp->nm_flag & NFSMNT_INT)) >> return (0); >> - if (p && p->p_siglist && >> - (((p->p_siglist & ~p->p_sigmask) & ~p->p_sigignore) & >> - NFSINT_SIGMASK)) >> + if (p && SIGNOTEMPTY(p->p_siglist) && NFSINT_SIGMASK(tmpset)) >> return (EINTR); >> return (0); >> } >> >> It looks like the old code was prepared for "p" to be NULL, but the >> new code assumes it is non-NULL. > > Am I missing something? > > - if (p && p->p_siglist && > - (((p->p_siglist & ~p->p_sigmask) & ~p->p_sigignore) & > - NFSINT_SIGMASK)) > + if (p && SIGNOTEMPTY(p->p_siglist) && NFSINT_SIGMASK(tmpset)) > > The > if (p .... > > in both cases checks for an null p. Or, am I missing something? You're missing the use of "p->p_siglist" that was added at the top of the function. John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990929120609.jdp>