Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:06:48 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk, brian@utell.co.uk, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ppp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311210506.449C-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970311182952.00ca33a0@dimaga.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote: > >The big difference here is pended (delayed) and not pended signals > >handling. PPP code was written in assumptions that SIGALRM reaction > >is not delayed, so if we trust developer, he choose timeout + handler > >action in the way that signals not missed. > > That would surprise me. Every other 'weird' condition (like malloc > returning NULL, or lines not being the apropriate length) seems to be > assumed to never happen - why should we assume the signal handling was > robust when nothing else is? (I'll try to finish off the patches to those > problems and send to Brian Real Soon Now.) I don't want to say that it is robust currently. I say different thing: even if we assume that it is robust, signal pending can broke it. -- 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.970311210506.449C-100000>