Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:15:42 -0700 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: help needed in threads.. (Signals) Message-ID: <20010709181542.E8775@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107091220140.48707-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 07:41:09PM -0700 References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010709084741.15060B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107091220140.48707-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 07:41:09PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > The UTS cannot deliver the signal until the kernel tells it that the > > ksectx is either interruptable or completed. I'm not quite sure what > > happens in a normal trampoline; if a signal handler completes > > normally, does it go back to the same spot in the kernel to finish its > > work (assume SA_RESTART is set)? > > No, the syscall is restarted from the beginning I think. > I'll check. > > the whole restart thing is a can of worms > Does the posix threads spec say that syscalls should be restartable? > Maybe we can say "no, not under threads they aren't". I don't think we can do that. A program should be able to rely on system calls being interrupted as part of its signal recovery logic. Jason 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?20010709181542.E8775>