From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 042361F55B for ; Sat, 16 May 2020 10:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7103840C29; Sat, 16 May 2020 10:03:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3C7103840C29 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1589623432; bh=sz+0gAQG0xW1Vye9a24croXnUTaGEmX+9QjxbFDSpEk=; h=To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=yBw7Uld45fIf+Jg8qjMqFRhF6m+X5D3FLHuUKhceC98o/N5A/kwJXCaLURwZxoBbe +SBXPxmjp9+rGROEQI3prbVFFj/NjRnHIQ5VM7sAfa4JKhruoRaXZWGE4GguqzyRN+ 8Bliv+rLIk6rBfkAa186T3NAjLfGfQenYAsDyW38= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A0D386F442 for ; Sat, 16 May 2020 10:03:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B1A0D386F442 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-502-7hX05hoWPNSwZVPnVxMAzw-1; Sat, 16 May 2020 06:03:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 7hX05hoWPNSwZVPnVxMAzw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E84BC461; Sat, 16 May 2020 10:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg2.str.redhat.com (ovpn-112-65.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.65]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447AF7D970; Sat, 16 May 2020 10:03:45 +0000 (UTC) To: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" Subject: Re: [PATCH] manual: Document the System V sigpause function References: <87h7zfn6rm.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <87sgg0jkp0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 12:03:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Michael Kerrisk's message of "Sat, 16 May 2020 11:56:00 +0200") Message-ID: <87a728jiww.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" * Michael Kerrisk: > Hi Florian, > > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 11:25, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Michael Kerrisk: >> >> >> +@deftypefun int sigpause (int @var{signal}) >> >> +@standards{XOPEN, signal.h} >> >> +@safety{@prelim{}@mtunsafe{@mtasurace{:sigprocmask}}@asunsafe{@asulo= ck{/hurd}}@acunsafe{@aculock{/hurd}}} >> >> +This deprecated function is a precursor to the @code{sigsuspend} >> >> +function (@pxref{Waiting for a Signal}): it removes @var{signal} fro= m >> >> +the thread's signal mask, and waits for a signal to arrive. On retu= rn >> >> +the previous set of blocked signals is restored. >> > >> > s/previous set of blocked signals is restored/thread's previous signal >> > mask is restored/ ? >> >> =E2=80=9CSet of blocked signals=E2=80=9D is the term preferred by the re= st of the >> manual. > > Maybe so, but: > * "set of blocked signals" is clunky and a bit imprecise (POSIX uses > the term mask) Yes, using non-standard terms has its problems. > * In the very preceding line, you yourself wrote "thread's signal mask"..= . That's a good point. Let me change that as well. > Maybe the rest of the manual should be fixed? Maybe, but I was explictly told not to use =E2=80=9Cpathname=E2=80=9D not t= oo long ago. The other issue is that it is not clear that the term =E2=80=9Cprocess sign= al mask=E2=80=9D (which is already used in a few places) does not reflect the situatio non Linux. Thanks, Florian