X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
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:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=RnmnG8JpsaJWEtM+OCAPIshmCYjR608pecPLGQv+iIfB6vExhGms6
	gXvVFEyFj7QUZaYDsnaDi6f+14O83bKNhZJtEdmlvMVLuEL9an0FCN9XGgh35/Ed
	LWt3qrvCVXCucGCbeD7qwaBe9NIeDd7iBevb8SdCZ+KrM8uFHSvDro=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	 bh=DN5I5aaFiUvEA3gMIOb35HRMGVk=; b=Ho4u/Y7dOBDdTtg/2kNvjHZDF3EK
	n+qblraRZxqqFANkZixrXLfs1AZ91sHcIj1+zIBW3GMQxXeBu4bQFlEaHL0hVOBD
	xFAXTbPlje7C4AiUdFP6gqw4nW5mqpbgkY3wYhpys+1yd29ZdE/eD24ejgifLd36
	z7R4E4UwIba67Xs=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-101.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=work!, HX-Languages-Length:1751, greate, H*F:D*cygwin.com
X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 13:58:49 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST: Cygwin 3.1.0-0.1
Message-ID: <20190818115849.GE11632@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>,	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20190814204100 DOT 659fe40d928eae15338198a7 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20190814204717 DOT caf6884b1216bbeee2f586d6 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20190814134900 DOT GY11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190815042126 DOT 7c2f0baf57b4a82f7d013f74 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20190815074930 DOT GF11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190815103638 DOT GO11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190815150436 DOT GP11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190815150908 DOT GQ11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190816144811 DOT GW11632 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20190818014317 DOT 38e23198147dad936da1ac94 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/MgqJpI0ZKqTFycX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190818014317.38e23198147dad936da1ac94@nifty.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)

--/MgqJpI0ZKqTFycX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 18 01:43, Takashi Yano wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>=20
> 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.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > Please note that you should ideally perform a full rebuild due to the
> > slight change in TLS layout.
>=20
> I confirmed that my STC and script command works as expected with these
> patches.
>=20
> Thank you for greate work!

Great, thank you, and thanks for testing!


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer

--/MgqJpI0ZKqTFycX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEoVYPmneWZnwT6kwF9TYGna5ET6AFAl1ZPXkACgkQ9TYGna5E
T6DgFxAAie0Dr1hTEfjCWoIvO2vYily1U+mUEQtZmGBq1rdsfE87l9kF4Pan2qpi
7qwrYUkU4LUXISOvkuGYv32xljwQUXMukym2ruX3S3vufufrZm9/1iY0P2cu17DL
Xp9AENcA0WLJD4B7Ev/ZNikTXplpggEm1shkdlfUSE4igsIqdSh2QD9fgJhXAqRE
oy5tndRli5FNSjDo5By1p1HSJYUepmCzK/HzXQowkqoHjBfGIInvTV+UGu43fXTb
enzeJ6oJQcm0/t8gwiI2J8Rz51snNqpB4f1U9OZpKQRpTFC9JcRLEm7EKsiAIZ2E
XWHW1Eepmi++xSuyTPzM88UR9d2/z/FD/VlPk5TtUYB1ZR+yswIZ09CByEyouof3
RSVrfCl5eb6n51qQRphVkvjNdc0ad33pYNNnIUwRY1+aokBG5bcodg/SJLfbCv5q
h/avXaVRkcrij4YG5xa7vGX58XS8k4Dxw88wIvXqRVhpOGFpilIs9EDXNOyIgCaj
tWPGQNsGuoMOWwxXo6dxl3dNOlquhf4fJCr3fMMsj0B18cE0eXdHpHe2UJDBtgrs
xZm+CD+acOJG8IPRMnVI7kpDYSQSyRiG3ggEvXHSbwblVKfZlcpi+b/Mk8sZ2xhR
uA3hk8dG6vX0LoOB649Oqq+BWno1xkA7vcjPET0VpcC2qvbPYbA=
=x6bs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/MgqJpI0ZKqTFycX--