Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:36:09 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: Brian Somers <brian@shift.lan.awfulhak.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, Brian Somers <brian@utell.co.uk>, FreeBSD-current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ppp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311183157.1003A-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <199703111517.PAA27630@shift.lan.awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > > Few minutes ago I send you message with subject "ppp & signals pending" > > not seeing this your message... Please don't miss it, here I explain > > my position mainly about SIGALRM and its pending. To summarize it > > I can say that I agree with restoring pending for SIGALRM, but some > > additional measurement must be done before. > > I havn't seen this mail yet - I'm at work at the moment, so it'll probably > be at home by the time I get there. You can find its copy in current@freebsd.org list. > Ok, I can re-produce the right number of signals. I don't know > why this is really needed, but I agree that it's more correct to > handle things the right number of times. If one packet must be sent on each alarm tick (LQR packets), it is needed to keep proper amount of them. > The reason I used __MAXSIG was because the code wasn't written to > be able to handle NSIG > 32. As Bruce points, NSIG is not standard too, but it is at least BSDsm. If "caused" will be array of ints instead of bitmask, it will be more portable and no 32bits in long / 32 signals assumptions. > I'll send you a copy of the code with the above before > commiting. I'd be grateful if you could examine it for > anything horrible. Ok. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311183157.1003A-100000>