From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 30 13:59:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0801F1065670; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:59:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53DE8FC0C; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.221.2] (remotevpn [192.168.221.2]) by ns1.feral.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5UDxdwL030286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:59:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Message-ID: <4C2B4DC6.1050404@feral.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:59:34 -0700 From: Matthew Jacob Organization: Feral Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201006292044.o5TKiJd7031766@svn.freebsd.org> <20100629210522.GY2179@hoeg.nl> <201006300934.47629.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201006300934.47629.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (ns1.feral.com [192.168.221.1]); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten Subject: Re: svn commit: r209595 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:59:53 -0000 Excuse my ignorance, but aren't signals supposed to be to processes, not specific threads? My memory/knowledge of Posix in this area is very rusty. > On Tuesday 29 June 2010 5:05:22 pm Ed Schouten wrote: > >> * John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> Log: >>> Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offending system call >>> rather than to the entire process. >>> >> Should something similar be used inside the TTY layer, where >> reads/writes may cause signals to be generated? >> > Hmm, I'm not sure. I do think you want to stop the entire process for SIGTTOU > or SIGTTIN (often the entire process group it seems), so I'm not sure if it > matters if the signal is sent to only the current thread versus sending it to > any thread in the process. > >