Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 19:10:47 -0600 From: "Todd C. Miller" <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.ORG>, audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] making dump EINTR resistant Message-ID: <200206050110.g551Alpu020379@xerxes.courtesan.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 2002 19:47:10 EDT." <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20020605083335.T5376-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <p05111726b923006f0c07@[128.113.24.47]> so spake Garance A Drosihn (drosih): > 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. It would probably be better to just make the code in question to just use sigaction() if you are concerned about portability. That way you get consistent handling of syscall restarts. Alternately, you could #define signal to bsd_signal when compiling on non-BSD platforms. That is not quite as portable though. - todd 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?200206050110.g551Alpu020379>