Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:32:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:32:19 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:56077 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:32:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:38:16 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Roland McGrath cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Ingo Molnar , Subject: Re: another subtle signals issue In-Reply-To: <200302120323.h1C3NCA19787@magilla.sf.frob.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1245 Lines: 29 On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Roland McGrath wrote: > > There is no argument about this. Dan and I are talking about real cases > that are definitely specified by POSIX, and you have not responded about them. First off, realize that - POSIX is less relevant than "what the 2.4.x" do. MUCH less. Binary compatibility is very important, much more so than some paper standard. - and even if you care 100% about POSIX, that still leaves the fact that everybody who has ever implemented POSIX also did their "this is how we differ" exception lists. It's part of the process. With that out of the way, I think I _did_ respond about them: ^Z _will_ cause interruptible system calls to return EINTR/ERESTARTNOHAND or one of the versions thereof. There are no ifs, buts and maybes about it. It will happen. It's very fundamental to how Linux signal handling and job control has always worked, and it's not even worth worrying about it (see above on _why_ it's not worth worrying about). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/