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

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:19:21 +0200

Chris Packham <[email-masked]> writes:

> 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?

If I look at the initialization of v in the context immediately above
the new code, it would appear that somebody already revisited this
policy.

-- 
David Kastrup