| To: | Geoff Clare <gwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: meaning of "the process is blocking [a specific signal]" |
| From: | Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 7 Jul 2008 02:41:40 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <dd0728a90807060058o29f97c38kfd61bcc948534244@xxxxxx><20080707091618.GA24419@xxxxxx> |
It's certainly the case that this wording predates threads and was written to talk about the old-fashioned single-threaded view. This is the same case as all SIGTTOU/SIGTTIN cases, in read/write, etc. Ideally they would all refer to some common language in one place to be clear. I think the only way to take this case is as s/process/thread/. It's the only thing that's sensible for what this case is about. It's probably what all real implementations actually do. The call itself is what can generate the signal. If the calling thread is blocking the signal then the call will complete in specified ways despite being in a background pgrp. It makes no sense to generate the signal and have it affect other threads when the instigating call itself is not affected. Thanks, Roland |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: meaning of "the process is blocking [a specific signal]", Geoff Clare |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: meaning of "the process is blocking [a specific signal]", David Butenhof |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: meaning of "the process is blocking [a specific signal]", Geoff Clare |
| Next by Thread: | Re: meaning of "the process is blocking [a specific signal]", David Butenhof |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |