[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SIGSTOP/CONT behaviour
> If I send a SIGSTOP to another process, I can NOT rely on him not
> running anymore after the kill syscall returns. Is that right? I think

Correct in specific narrow windows. A signal is an asynchronous event

> Additionally I could imagine there isn't even a guarantee that the
> process won't execute userland code anymore in the case of SMP?


> (What I wanted to do is stop several file serving daemons
> (ftp,samba,netatalk) from fiddling with the filesystem while I traverse
> through a file tree. I need to make sure I don't get files twice because
> they have been moved while traversing and so on. I would not mind that
> much about file *contents* changing, though. I'd welcome other
> suggestions that don't imply changing the source code of these servers.)

I guess if you arent doing it often you could kill them then check they
are in stopped state but thats icky.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.030 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site