On Aug 18 01:43, Takashi Yano wrote:
> 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!

Great, thank you, and thanks for testing!


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer