Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:02:08 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <15496.14272.351722.199146@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071606050.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071606050.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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 > > hmm can you explain what you mean? I can't think of anything > that would change.. 'read' is a system call. If a program is sitting in a read (waiting for user input), this system call must be interruptible. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15496.14272.351722.199146>