From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:20:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:20:00 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-198-73-118.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.198.73.118]:18182 "HELO turing.xman.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:19:49 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010629011855.00a98098@imap.xman.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:19:50 -0700 To: "Daniel R. Kegel" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Christopher Smith Subject: Re: A signal fairy tale In-Reply-To: <200106280257.TAA06889@alumnus.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 07:57 PM 6/27/2001 -0700, Daniel R. Kegel wrote: >From: Christopher Smith > >I guess the main thing I'm thinking is this could require some significant > >changes to the way the kernel behaves. Still, it's worth taking a "try it > >and see approach". If anyone else thinks this is a good idea I may hack > >together a sample patch and give it a whirl. > >What's the biggest change you see? From my (two-martini-lunch-tainted) >viewpoint, it's just another kind of signal masking, sorta... Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think this is just another branch in the signal delivery code. Not necessarily too huge a change. I'll hack on this over the weekend I think. --Chris