From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761298AbXGXQyu (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:54:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754957AbXGXQyn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:54:43 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:48087 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860AbXGXQym (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:54:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:54:52 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: "Agarwal, Lomesh" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , nigel@suspend2.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: which signal is sent to freeze process? Message-ID: <20070724165452.GA24151@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200707210010.05877.rjw@sisk.pl> <200707232125.09070.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! Can you generate small testcase that demonstrates the problem? > Then what would be the correct way to handle resume process. The other > way of course is to make all the applications check the errno in case of > failure. But that seems more more problematic then system call checking. > What do you say? Hmm, does that testcase behave correctly over SIGSTOP/SIGCONT? I'm not saying kernel behaves nicely here, but perhaps fixing the apps to check errno properly is the right thing to do? :-) Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html