From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 9 18:15:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C27137B403 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jasone@magnesium.net) Received: (qmail 16433 invoked by uid 1142); 10 Jul 2001 01:16:34 -0000 Date: 9 Jul 2001 18:16:34 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:15:42 -0700 From: Jason Evans To: Julian Elischer Cc: Daniel Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: help needed in threads.. (Signals) Message-ID: <20010709181542.E8775@canonware.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 07:41:09PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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