From owner-cvs-all Mon Sep 30 18: 1:46 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA1337B401; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9398C43E3B; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECD62A896; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Juli Mallett Cc: Julian Elischer , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/osf1 osf1_signal.c In-Reply-To: <20020930162948.A50424@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:01:44 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20021001010144.7ECD62A896@canning.wemm.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Julian Elischer [ 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