Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:08:22 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <4410.1015538902@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:44:08 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071342160.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071342160.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, Ju lian Elischer writes: >I would argue that a process can be considered to be suspended even while >it is running in kernel space. Since this would affect not only SIGSTOP but actually all signals, and since we have long-running syscalls like sendfile I'm not sure this assumption is a good idea. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4410.1015538902>