|
From: | Mahyar Abbaspour |
Subject: | Re: [Nano-devel] [PATCH] Window resize handling |
Date: | Tue, 5 May 2015 11:23:47 +0430 |
?? But... but... When the SIGWINCH gets delivered, the handler gets
executed, and the sigwinch_flag gets toggled, so... how are we not
informed about it?
> So I think the proper way is to first check for pending SIGWINCHs
> and if there is no pending SIGWINCH, then we can safely go to
> the blocking mode. If we omit this block, it will break this special
> case. However I would have no objection if you omit this block.
I have removed the section of code, and cannot notice any
adverse effects. And how could there be? Whenever we are
resizing the window, we are already in blocking mode: [...]
> > And the remaining allow_pending_sigwinch(FALSE);
> > wouldn't it be more logical to place it after
> > if (sigwinch_flag != sigwinch_flag_save)?
> It's really a rare case but if a SIGWINCH is raised just after leaving
> the blocking mode, the signal handler would be run and it would toggle the
> sigwinch_flag variable, preventing the following if to be executed.
?? You mean the sigwinch_flag would have been toggled twice?
In that case I reraise my previous suggestion: let the handler
do a sigwinch_flag++.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |