Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:05:55 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nate Williams wrote: > > My suggestion is to stop making STOP type signals an exception, > > because it should not be necessary to stop them in the middle of a > > syscall, just stop them from getting back to userspace. > > What about when you suspend a process in the middle of read/write, which > are syscalls? This kind of behavior is *extremely* common-place. of course The question, is, can you tell the difference between the case where the proces is suspended at the user boundary and where the process is doing it's sleep? (Considering that immediatly after the sleep finishes, it's going to abort the syscall and go to the user boundary because of the signal). > > > > Nate > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000>