Re: Signals
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
4 Feb 1997 22:21:06 GMT
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970203204509.1635A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
By author: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@analogic.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> It would not be very difficult at all. The main point was that negative
> signals "are supposed to be" for the use of anybody. Only positive
> signals of specific kinds are specified. Now, if kill() didn't trap
> negative signals, I think that they would work!
>
> If negative signals were allowed, the kernel would not have to "add" any
> "new" ones. It only uses the "defined" ones, which are only numbers....
> and allows other non-specific handlers to be defined by persons in
> user-mode.
>
Hardly, since last I checked pending signals for a process was a
bitmask...
-hpa
--
This space intentionally has nothing but text explaining why this
space has nothing but text explaining that this space would otherwise
have been left blank, and would otherwise have been left blank.