Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:50:05 +0100 | From | Philipp Rumpf <> | Subject | Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux" |
| |
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 09:59:00PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Cool problem: > > Some threaded, uh, "thing" sends SIGSTOP to one of its threads. > The admin sends SIGSTOP to the whole group of tasks, then sends > SIGCONT to undo the SIGSTOP. Does the thread stopped earlier > get to continue, or does it somehow remain stopped?
It might be worth it to make SIGSTOP / SIGCONT nest properly anyway. Would keeping a counter of the level of SIGSTOPs received violate any common standard / break any applications ? - 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/
|  |