From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jan 27 12:37:13 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (cb58709-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.17.241.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E16FC37B401; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jlemon@localhost)
	by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0RKa7172632;
	Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:36:07 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from jlemon)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:36:07 -0600
From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
To: Trent Nelson <tpnelson@switch.com>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, jlemon@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kevent signal handling question.
Message-ID: <20010127143607.T29115@prism.flugsvamp.com>
References: <20010127151543.B2890@dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <20010127151543.B2890@dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 03:15:43PM -0500, Trent Nelson wrote:
> 
>     I'd just like to confirm that my interpretation of how kevent()
>     can be made to handle signals is correct.
> 
>     From kqueue(2):
> 
>   ...
> 
>   EVFILT_SIGNAL
>    Takes the signal number to monitor as the identifier and returns when
>    the given signal is delivered to the process.  This coexists with the
>    signal() and sigaction() facilities, and has a lower precedence.  The
>    filter will record all attempts to deliver a signal to a process, even
>    if the signal has been marked as SIG_IGN. [...]
>   
>     So if I set all appropriate signals I want to monitor to SIG_IGN, I
>     can essentially have kevent() becoming the primary signal handling
>     mechanism in my program?

Correct.
--
Jonathan


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