Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 1999 00:30:13 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: SIGCONT misbehaviour in Linux |
| |
On 8 Dec 1999, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>You don't understand the initial problem. This is that
I am not even considering it now. I was considering what the kernel should do after a:
kill(SIGSTOP); kill(SIGCONT);
Richard was talking about what happens after a _signal_ and not after a ptrace_continue. These are two different things and we can make them behave in completly different way inside the kernel. I don't think you should compare the SIGSTOP+SIGCONG with SIGSTOP+PTRACE_CONTINUE.
>reasons outside the program. I user hitting ^Z or gdb stopping and
I think we should make difference between ^Z and gdb. The signal code is filled by ugly special cases exactly because they are different things AFIK.
Do you agree that ^Z is just correct returning -EINTR immediatly at SIGCONT time (aka `fg` time)?
Should we make PTRACE_CONTINUE to force nanosleep to continue (unlike the SIGCONT case?)? BTW, I am not sure if nanosleep is the only place that you may like to change in this respect...
Andrea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |