From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 27 12:16:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bulwark.switch.com (bulwark.switch.com [206.181.77.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 454AA37B400; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:16:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by bulwark.switch.com; id PAA24023; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:16:33 -0500 Received: from dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com(172.16.3.122) by bulwark.switch.com via smap (V5.5) id xma024021; Sat, 27 Jan 01 15:16:06 -0500 Received: (from breaker@localhost) by dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f0RKFip07174; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:15:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from breaker) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:15:43 -0500 From: Trent Nelson To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Cc: jlemon@FreeBSD.org Subject: kevent signal handling question. Message-ID: <20010127151543.B2890@dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'd just like to confirm that my interpretation of how kevent() can be made to handle signals is correct. From kqueue(2): ... EVFILT_SIGNAL Takes the signal number to monitor as the identifier and returns when the given signal is delivered to the process. This coexists with the signal() and sigaction() facilities, and has a lower precedence. The filter will record all attempts to deliver a signal to a process, even if the signal has been marked as SIG_IGN. [...] So if I set all appropriate signals I want to monitor to SIG_IGN, I can essentially have kevent() becoming the primary signal handling mechanism in my program? Thanks in advance. Regards, Trent. -- Trent Nelson - Software Engineer - tpnelson@switch.com "A man with unlimited enthusiasm can achieve almost anything." --unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message