Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:44 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/osf1 osf1_signal.c Message-ID: <20021001010144.7ECD62A896@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20020930162948.A50424@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [ Data: 2002-09-30 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/osf1 osf1_signal.c ] > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > > > > > > I should mention that signal delivery is now decidedly almost LIFO, and > > > will be fully LIFO once everything uses a ksiginfo, and not a signal > > > number... Right now it's almost racey, which leaves it undefined, but > > > it's mostly like... [keep in mind the proc lock must be held, so there > > > is no race, and it is defined, but...] > > > 1. Check the signal queue... > > > 2. Pop a signal number off... The most recently recv'd... > > > 3. Dequeue the first signal we find with that signo... > > > 4. Send it... > > > > IF IT'S A tailq, why isn't it FIFO? > > would it make a difference to have one queue per type? > > Because you want the most immediate thing, think about recieving SIGSTOP > while you have other signals queued. What about SIGSTOP and a later SIGCONT? Could the LIFO effect mean the last signal (SIGCONT) is delivered before the SIGSTOP? This would be bad. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021001010144.7ECD62A896>