From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Mar  7 22:20:29 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C4B37B400
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu,  7 Mar 2002 22:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020308062023.HWHM2951.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:20:23 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA46387;
	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:08:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <15496.14346.988827.915384@caddis.yogotech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203072207030.46043-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

SIGSTOP doesn't interrupt the system call. it behaves differently.
it moves if from the temporary (maybe) sleep to a permanent (until
CONT arrives) SUSPENDED state, but never interrupts it.


On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Nate Williams wrote:

> > > > 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