From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jan 30 10:51:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA23990 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:51:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles119.castles.com [208.214.165.119]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA23981 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:51:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA01004; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:47:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901301847.KAA01004@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Mark Newton cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *1 routines in /sys/kern In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:00:15 +1030." <199901300730.SAA20522@atdot.dotat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:47:21 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > If I split sigaction(), sigsuspend(), sigpending(), sigprocmask() and > sigaltstack() into front-end and back-end pieces a-la NetBSD so that > emulator-specific signal semantics can be imposed without totally > duplicating those routines inside the emulator (like I did with > sendit() and recvit() for socket I/O), will anyone complain? I'd second Garrett on this; as long as it's documented somewhere that the *1 routines are the "backends", it sounds eminently sensible. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message