Re: SIGCONT misbehaviour in Linux
Simon Patience (sp@albion.engr.sgi.com)
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:29:25 -0800 (PST)
In article <82mvls$aqtrr@fido.engr.sgi.com>, you write:
|> On 8 Dec 1999, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
|> >This is not what happens on other platforms. At least with my limited
|> >testing I found that if you do on Solaris
|> >
|> > sleep 10
|> > ^Z
|> > fg
|> >
|> >the process will continue to sleep.
|>
|> That's not enough to tell what the kernel is doing, maybe they have a bit
|> smarter sleep(1) program. `sleep` can be changed to run nanosleep again if
|> it received -EINTR and `req` is not null. You only have to pass as `req`
|> the `rem` that you got back from the previous nanosleep call.
No, the problem is that you shouldn't have interrupted it in the first
place. What is the point of interrupting a blocked process so that you
can block it?
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (650) 933-4644
Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (650) 962-8404
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Email: sp@sgi.com
Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
-
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/