Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:47:02 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk, brian@utell.co.uk, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ppp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311164029.394A-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <199703111050.VAA09291@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > >This way you lost _number_ of signals which may come. Since all signals > >mapped to single bit in "caused" bitmask, here can be f.e. 10 or more > >similar signals, but only one time signal handler will be executed. You > >need to replace "caused" bitmask with "int caused[__MAXSIG];" and count > >true number of signals come: caused[sig]++ (decrease it when handler was > >executed: caused[sig]--). > > Generally you don't care and can't tell exactly how many signals occurred > (the system doesn't count them). One exception might be if SIGALRM is > pended and there is too large a latrency before unpending. Then counting > could be used to tell how many SIGALRMs were mishandled :-). Why system? The handler count them. I.e. LQR package must be sent each 1.2 seconds. When you delay handler, you can lost signal during delayed handler processing, as result you will sent less packets then needed. With signal counting you only increase time interval, but sent exact number of packets. -- 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.970311164029.394A-100000>