Re: [PATCH 0/5] replace signal() with sigaction()

> Am 5/28/2014 8:14, schrieb Jeremiah Mahler:
> > 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.
> > 
> > This patch set replaces calls to signal() with sigaction() in all files
> > except sigchain.c.  sigchain.c is a bit more complicated than the others
> > and will be done in a separate patch.
> 
> In compat/mingw.c we have:
> 
> int sigaction(int sig, struct sigaction *in, struct sigaction *out)
> {
> 	if (sig != SIGALRM)
> 		return errno = EINVAL,
> 			error("sigaction only implemented for SIGALRM");
> 	if (out != NULL)
> 		return errno = EINVAL,
> 			error("sigaction: param 3 != NULL not implemented");
> 
> 	timer_fn = in->sa_handler;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> Notice "only implemented for SIGALRM". Are adding the missing signals
> somewhere (here or in a later patch)?
> 

> > Jeremiah Mahler (5):
> >   progress.c: replace signal() with sigaction()
> >   daemon.c run_service(): replace signal() with sigaction()
> >   daemon.c child_handler(): replace signal() with sigaction()
> >   daemon.c service_loop(): replace signal() with sigaction()
> >   connect.c: replace signal() with sigaction()
> > 
> >  connect.c  |  5 ++++-
> >  daemon.c   | 15 ++++++++++++---
> >  progress.c |  6 +++++-
> >  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Isn't this a bit too much of code churn, given that there were no bug
> reports where signal handling is identified as the culprit despite
> the warning you cited above?
>