From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80187A04DB; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:14:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13F1C9BA; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp1.iitb.ac.in (smtpd9.iitb.ac.in [103.21.126.64]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DEB4C7B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 04:40:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from ldns2.iitb.ac.in (ldns2.iitb.ac.in [10.200.12.2]) by smtp1.iitb.ac.in (Postfix) with SMTP id D0D27104D0D9 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:09:58 +0530 (IST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.iitb.ac.in D0D27104D0D9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iitb.ac.in; s=mail; t=1606793998; bh=dEQvXW7kVl1NJtltrCFHw9c2P6Dh17a2TOHbHaKgVtw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=NEs2uJJzYcTsHVm4BUjg8N7xg/yeMKjuI1bkpB9dNir+4IUmAULIMvD1lbmJz35rR ttY5xt4kIZ6FqJWSDDeqxpmvVI1JhBr8t8wq/wj3V+YE3poxhYP4QLwr0Pm68jUGJQ efUqwHH/4bCmLHTcWeR9mRftms8yIpa6yo60fuhQ= Received: (qmail 19290 invoked by uid 510); 1 Dec 2020 09:09:58 +0530 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from 10.200.1.25 by ldns2 (envelope-from , uid 501) with qmail-scanner-2.11 spamassassin: 3.4.1. mhr: 1.0. {clamdscan: 0.100.0/26004} Clear:RC:1(10.200.1.25):SA:0(0.5/7.0):. Processed in 3.196443 secs; 01 Dec 2020 09:09:58 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on ldns2.iitb.ac.in X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_50,IITB_ORIG, PROPER_IITB_MSGID autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times. X-Envelope-From: prateekag@cse.iitb.ac.in X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received: from unknown (HELO ldns2.iitb.ac.in) (10.200.1.25) by ldns2.iitb.ac.in with SMTP; 1 Dec 2020 09:09:55 +0530 Received: from mail.cse.iitb.ac.in (miller.cse.iitb.ac.in [10.129.3.1]) by ldns2.iitb.ac.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB7E3414DC for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:09:55 +0530 (IST) Received: by mail.cse.iitb.ac.in (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 5761FF40D0C; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:09:55 +0530 (IST) Received: from www.cse.iitb.ac.in (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cse.iitb.ac.in (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4918AF40D09; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 09:09:54 +0530 (IST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:09:53 +0530 From: prateekag To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: thomas@monjalon.net Message-ID: <77fa0d526982e5fd0a15b293599d973c@cse.iitb.ac.in> X-Sender: prateekag@cse.iitb.ac.in User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:14:15 +0100 Subject: [dpdk-dev] Printfs in Signal Handler X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" printf is not signal safe and may lead to deadlock if kept in signal handler and signal comes in two quick succession. It will not lead to incorrect behavior and it is a highly unlikely event. And an expert may understand why this issue happened. Is it worthwhile to change these printfs to unix I/O write call? Prateek Agarwal