From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 7 16:25:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4273F37B425 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 1500AAE275; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:24:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:24:52 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <20020308002452.GN26621@elvis.mu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i 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 * Julian Elischer [020307 14:00] wrote: > > My suggestion is to remove teh code in issignal() that perfoms the > blocking actions and create a separate function that does that action. > I would then call that function from userret() immediatly after the call > to issignal(). The result would be that > suspended processes would still not reach userland, but processes would > not have to option of suspending indefinitly at sleep(). You are correct, you can _not_ allow arbitrary kernel threads to block indefinetly while potentially holding higher level locks. Please proceed with your planned work, it seems like the right thing to do. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message