From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 7 15:36: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DB837B405 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:36:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from caddis.yogotech.com (caddis.yogotech.com [206.127.123.130]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01515; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:35:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by caddis.yogotech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g27NZat02712; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:35:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:35:36 -0700 To: Julian Elischer Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <4410.1015538902@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) 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 > My suggestion is to stop making STOP type signals an exception, > because it should not be necessary to stop them in the middle of a > syscall, just stop them from getting back to userspace. What about when you suspend a process in the middle of read/write, which are syscalls? This kind of behavior is *extremely* common-place. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message