Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 19:47:10 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] making dump EINTR resistant Message-ID: <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20020605083335.T5376-100000@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20020605083335.T5376-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:43 AM +1000 6/5/02, Bruce Evans wrote: >On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> > > The attached diff is against -current. >> >> Comments? > >read(), etc., are supposed to be restarted after signals, so >the EINTR checks should have no effect in most cases. > Would it be acceptable to add EINTR-type checks to freebsd-ish code? There are some sections of lpr/lpd which do not work right when compiled on other platforms, unless I add EINTR checks at the right places. Admittedly I haven't gone thru and figured out everyplace that should have those checks, I've just added them when I run into some system call which seems to get interrupted a lot. The present lpr code already includes *some* checks for EINTR, but I add a few more (when I compile lpr on other platforms...). Would it be reasonable to add those to the regular freebsd source for lpr? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05111726b923006f0c07>