Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] progress.c: replace signal() with sigaction()

From: Chris Packham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 20:07:38 +1200

On 28/05/14 18:14, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> From signal(2)
> 
>   The behavior of signal() varies across UNIX versions, and has also var‐
>   ied historically across different versions of Linux.   Avoid  its  use:
>   use sigaction(2) instead.  See Portability below.

Minor nit. The last sentence applies to the man page you're quoting and
doesn't really make sense when viewed in the context of this commit
message. Same applies to other patches in this series.

> 
> Replaced signal() with sigaction() in progress.c
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeremiah Mahler <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  progress.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/progress.c b/progress.c
> index 261314e..24df263 100644
> --- a/progress.c
> +++ b/progress.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,12 @@ static void set_progress_signal(void)
>  static void clear_progress_signal(void)
>  {
>  	struct itimerval v = {{0,},};
> +	struct sigaction sa;
> +
> +	memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
> +	sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;

A C99 initialiser here would save the call to memset. Unfortunately
Documentation/CodingGuidelines is fairly clear on not using C99
initialisers, given the fact we're now at git 2.0 maybe it's time to
revisit this policy?

>  	setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, &v, NULL);
> -	signal(SIGALRM, SIG_IGN);
> +	sigaction(SIGALRM, &sa, 0);
>  	progress_update = 0;
>  }
>  
>