Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:03:22 -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: <15496.14346.988827.915384@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <15495.63816.189506.113294@caddis.yogotech.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071600290.37321-100000@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. > > > The question, is, can you tell the difference between the case where > the proces is suspended at the user boundary and where > the process is doing it's sleep? How are you going to 'interrupt' the system call without interrupting the system call? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are proposing that no system calls need to be interruptable. 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?15496.14346.988827.915384>