From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 25 01:51:19 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6C4106564A;
	Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from listlog2011@gmail.com)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A258FC1B;
	Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2P1pGkc007098;
	Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:51:18 GMT (envelope-from listlog2011@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <4F6E7A14.2090006@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:51:16 +0800
From: David Xu <listlog2011@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
	rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>
References: <20120324200014.GA91966@thorin>
In-Reply-To: <20120324200014.GA91966@thorin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: davidxu@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SIGSERVICE to sys/signal.h
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: davidxu@freebsd.org
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:51:19 -0000

On 2012/3/25 4:00, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As SIGSERVICE is de-facto reserved by librt, shouldn't it be defined (or at
> least listed as such) in<sys/signal.h>, just like SIGTHR/SIGLWP ?
>
> See attached patch.
>
Yes, but I think the signal name is too general, should it be SIGLIBRT 
or something else ?