John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 9:59:34 am Matthew Jacob wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't signals supposed to be to processes, not
specific threads?
Not for synchronous events. For example, when you get a segfault due to a
NULL pointer the SIGSEGV is sent to the th
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 9:59:34 am Matthew Jacob wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, but aren't signals supposed to be to processes, not
> specific threads?
Not for synchronous events. For example, when you get a segfault due to a
NULL pointer the SIGSEGV is sent to the thread that actually segfault
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't signals supposed to be to processes, not
specific threads?
My memory/knowledge of Posix in this area is very rusty.
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 5:05:22 pm Ed Schouten wrote:
* John Baldwin wrote:
Log:
Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offend
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 5:05:22 pm Ed Schouten wrote:
> * John Baldwin wrote:
> > Log:
> > Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offending system call
> > rather than to the entire process.
>
> Should something similar be used inside the TTY layer, where
> reads/writes may cause signals
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:05:22PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> * John Baldwin wrote:
> > Log:
> > Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offending system call
> > rather than to the entire process.
> Should something similar be used inside the TTY layer, where
> reads/writes may cause sig
* John Baldwin wrote:
> Log:
> Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offending system call
> rather than to the entire process.
Should something similar be used inside the TTY layer, where
reads/writes may cause signals to be generated?
Greetings,
--
Ed Schouten
WWW: http://80386.nl
Author: jhb
Date: Tue Jun 29 20:44:19 2010
New Revision: 209595
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209595
Log:
Send SIGPIPE to the thread that issued the offending system call
rather than to the entire process.
Reported by: Anit Chakraborty
Reviewed by: kib, deischen (concept)
