Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:47:41 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: manipulating sigmask from filesystems and drivers |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Easy reason: there are tons of code sequences that _cannot_ take signals. > The only way to make a signal go away is to actually deliver it, and there > are documented interfaces that are guaranteed to complete without > delivering a signal. The trivial case is a disk read: real applications > break if you return partial results in order to handle signals in the > middle. > > In short, this is not something that can be discussed. It's a cold fact, a > law of UNIX if you will.
Any program setting up signal handlers should expext interrupted i/o, otherwise it's buggy. If a program doesn't have any signal handlers, there is no signal to deliver, so simple programs don't need to worry.
bye, Roman
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |