DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=tmMBNBjnwQpyq5iVrqtjyOaLg5UbsBu2WTv2jVENCCi
	1NRaXY6o22/CBKc9A5uM6Em8V5vgIf4g/Y8MHWuuA1Hs86h3b6IIfzz004gA58nc
	KQX/g1nip05yHgh9Y3viHvvHfZ+PIMcMdDE1V7DKoSk1m5tUEHl6UkEUtkHFvrmY
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 01:43:17 +0900
From: Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST: Cygwin 3.1.0-0.1
Message-Id: <20190818014317.38e23198147dad936da1ac94@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20190816144811.GW11632@calimero.vinschen.de>
References: <20190812153613.GN11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190813104753.GU11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190814204100.659fe40d928eae15338198a7@nifty.ne.jp>	<20190814204717.caf6884b1216bbeee2f586d6@nifty.ne.jp>	<20190814134900.GY11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190815042126.7c2f0baf57b4a82f7d013f74@nifty.ne.jp>	<20190815074930.GF11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190815103638.GO11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190815150436.GP11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190815150908.GQ11632@calimero.vinschen.de>	<20190816144811.GW11632@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Corinna,

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:48:11 +0200
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I now had an idea, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the right thing to
> do.  Can you please test this?  It consists of two patches, one with the
> revamped signalfd handling, and one with the revert of the signalfd
> patch I applied a couple of days ago.
> 
> Quick description: I dropped signalfd_select_wait entirely.  Instead,
> wait_sig sets or resets a manual event object to indicate if there are
> signals pending in the queue, even after trying to handle them the
> normal way.  That usually means they are blocked.
> 
> select() uses the event to wake up from WFMO, if at least one signalfd
> is present in the read descriptor set.  The rest is done via the peek
> and verify functions in select, which basically just check if this
> signalfd is waiting for one of the pending signals.
> 
> The reversion of my patch from a couple days ago is not required as
> such, but after thinking about this a while I'm convinced that this was
> just me not getting the full picture.  Also, reverting this patch would
> revert to seeing a SEGV in your testcase and thus a bug in the new code,
> too.
> 
> I attached both patches.  It would be pretty nice if you could test them
> and point out any problems you get with this new code.
> 
> Please note that you should ideally perform a full rebuild due to the
> slight change in TLS layout.

I confirmed that my STC and script command works as expected with these
patches.

Thank you for greate work!

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple