From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 7 14: 8:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98CB37B404 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:08:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g27M8MnK004411; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:08:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:44:08 PST." Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:08:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4410.1015538902@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp 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 In message , Ju lian Elischer writes: >I would argue that a process can be considered to be suspended even while >it is running in kernel space. Since this would affect not only SIGSTOP but actually all signals, and since we have long-running syscalls like sendfile I'm not sure this assumption is a good idea. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message