Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:36:07 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Trent Nelson <tpnelson@switch.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, jlemon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kevent signal handling question. Message-ID: <20010127143607.T29115@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20010127151543.B2890@dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com> References: <20010127151543.B2890@dhcp103-172-16-3.switch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 03:15:43PM -0500, Trent Nelson wrote: > > 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? Correct. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010127143607.T29115>