From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Mar  7 20: 3:34 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E601D37B400
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu,  7 Mar 2002 20:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12402;
	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:03:23 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2843NC04644;
	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:03:23 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from nate)
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15496.14346.988827.915384@caddis.yogotech.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:03:22 -0700
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
References: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com>
	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > > 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.
> 
> 
> 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?

How are you going to 'interrupt' the system call without interrupting
the system call?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you
are proposing that no system calls need to be interruptable.


Nate

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message