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

> Chris Packham <judge.packham@gmail.com> 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 <jmmahler@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  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.