Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:24:52 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <20020308002452.GN26621@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071342160.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071342160.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [020307 14:00] wrote: > > My suggestion is to remove teh code in issignal() that perfoms the > blocking actions and create a separate function that does that action. > I would then call that function from userret() immediatly after the call > to issignal(). The result would be that > suspended processes would still not reach userland, but processes would > not have to option of suspending indefinitly at sleep(). You are correct, you can _not_ allow arbitrary kernel threads to block indefinetly while potentially holding higher level locks. Please proceed with your planned work, it seems like the right thing to do. -Alfred 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?20020308002452.GN26621>