From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 28 09:18:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA26373 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:18:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from phoenix.its.rpi.edu (dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu [128.113.161.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA26234; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:17:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Received: from localhost (dec@localhost) by phoenix.its.rpi.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18518; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:17:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:17:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "David E. Cross" To: Karl Denninger cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Withrow , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER In-Reply-To: <19980428073841.05698@mcs.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > Well, now wait a minute.. > > SIGDANGER is useful if properly trapped and handled. I'd like to see if > supported with the default to be "ignore" (ie: you have to ASK for it to > be delivered and processed). May I ask what good is it if it is ignored by default???? Default should be as it is on AIX, to terminate the process. In general you care more about system processes than user procs, so I would "make world" on my system if this got added, with all the system procs having a one line addition in main() to ignore the signal, and I would be ready to go. -- David Cross To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message