From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 7 20: 2:23 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 8E5B837B41B for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:02:12 -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 VAA12346; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:02:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g28428J04624; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:02:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15496.14272.351722.199146@caddis.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:02:08 -0700 To: Julian Elischer Cc: Nate Williams , Poul-Henning Kamp , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com> 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: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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 > > hmm can you explain what you mean? I can't think of anything > that would change.. 'read' is a system call. If a program is sitting in a read (waiting for user input), this system call must be interruptible. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message