Re: Interesting scheduling times

David Holland (dholland@cs.toronto.edu)
Sun, 20 Sep 1998 14:11:51 -0400

> >>> Any program that counts on the behavior of signal() in this
> >>> manner is broken. What part of that isn't clear?
> >>
> >> Nothing. It is clearly wrong.
> >
> > This is at variance with accepted practice.
>
> In 1998, it may be a substandard way to write code. That isn't
> enough reason to justify breaking something that has worked
> fine for 3 decades on UNIX systems and for many years on Linux.

It has been a substandard way to write code ever since BSD and AT&T
Unixes had different signal() behavior. That's been a long, long time.

> There is no reason to convert Linux into a BSD clone at the
> expense of existing Linux and UNIX source code. If you really
> want BSD, you know where to get it.

Oy. Don't you have anything more important to do?

> >> [crap deleted]
>
> Hmmm? You deleted the on-topic parts twice.

Hardly.

*plonk*

-- 
   - David A. Holland             | (please continue to send non-list mail to
     dholland@cs.utoronto.ca      | dholland@hcs.harvard.edu. yes, I moved.)


     Any netkit mail should be sent to netbug@ftp.uk.linux.org, not me.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/