Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!elias
From: elias@eosp1.UUCP (Doug Elias)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: what's the opinion on "sigrestartable()"?
Message-ID: <798@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 14:55:09 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.798
Posted: Wed Apr 18 14:55:09 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 04:26:48 EST
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 23

*

..!seismo!mike <i think this is Mike Muus?> proposed a new
system-call, 

    sigrestartable()

which would be utilized to allow processes to select either pre-4.2
signal-handling, or 4.2-style; the primary difference addressed is
whether or not a system-call should be resumed after being interrupted.

...i don't recall seeing a lot of discussion about this; we develop
s/w on VAXen that gets down-loaded to other boxes for actual shipment
to customers, and some of the code that needs testing prior to down-
loading has some dependencies on interruptable system-calls; if we
want to retain that testing-ability, we'll probably have to "enhance"
our kernel with something like what was proposed...right?

...anybody else have "important" s/w depending on interruptable-
system-calls?


doug