Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:34:10 -0800 (PST) | From | dean gaudet <> | Subject | Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land programmer... |
| |
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 george@moberg.com wrote:
> I don't mean this to sound like a rant. It's just that I can't possibly > ascertain why someone in their right mind would want any behaviour > different than SA_RESTART.
study apache 1.3's child_main code, you'll see an example of EINTR in use. it's used to get out of accept() -- most specifically when the child needs to die off (because the parent has determined that there's either too many children, or because a shutdown/restart is occuring).
apache 1.3's BUFF code also uses EINTR for timeouts.
i eliminated signals in the 2.0 design... so it doesn't use EINTR any more, but it restarts in userland because that's the most portable thing to do.
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 george@moberg.com wrote:
> After reading about SA_RESTART, ok. However, couldn't those > applications that require it enable this behaviour explicitly?
anyone sane writing modern applications will use sigaction(). signal() is legacy.
-dean
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |