Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST: Cygwin 3.1.0-0.1

[Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>]

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