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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST