From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 5 23:56:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA13008 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 23:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA13003 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 23:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id RAA16135; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:51:48 +1000 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:51:48 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199604060751.RAA16135@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Any clues as to why this fails? Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> - printf() gives undefined behaviour in signal handlers. >I know that. I just wanted to see if the handler was being called at Don't show bad examples. >> except ttys, sockets or perhaps pipes. To work as documented in fcntl.3, >> F_SETOWN would need to have a pgrp entry in the filedesc struct. This >> would probably be useful - it would allow sending SIGIO to arbitrary >> sets of sufficiently privileged processes. >Sounds fine to me - did I hear an implicit hand being raised here, or >should one of the rest of us go about doing this? :-) I'm still wondering why BSD[Lite] does it the way it does. >What Thomas wants is not unreasonable here - polling the mouse with >SIGIO might not be elegant, but I can certainly understand the desire >to have it work. I can predict that his next question after reading >the above will be "Uh, OK. So.... Can I rely on this working anytime >soon?" and it'd be nice to have some semblance of an answer in >advance. No. The next release isn't close, and some people will keep running 1.1.5... Bruce