lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.051 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site