Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 1999 01:32:34 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: SIGCONT misbehaviour in Linux |
| |
On 8 Dec 1999, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>This is not what happens on other platforms. At least with my limited >testing I found that if you do on Solaris > > sleep 10 > ^Z > fg > >the process will continue to sleep.
That's not enough to tell what the kernel is doing, maybe they have a bit smarter sleep(1) program. `sleep` can be changed to run nanosleep again if it received -EINTR and `req` is not null. You only have to pass as `req` the `rem` that you got back from the previous nanosleep call.
>> Should we make PTRACE_CONTINUE to force nanosleep to continue (unlike the >> SIGCONT case?)? > >This is the least what has to happen.
Ok.
>> BTW, I am not sure if nanosleep is the only place that you may like >> to change in this respect... > >No, it's not the only place (e.g., blocking read call). I think this >is a general change. Whenever the continue happens throug >PTRACE_CONTINUE no EINTR should be generated.
Ok.
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/
| |