Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6799 comp.unix.wizards:8163 comp.unix.microport:567
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Trouble killing processes in SysV/AT
Message-ID: <11291@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 88 16:32:24 GMT
References: <3950@killer.UUCP> <3951@killer.UUCP> <468@micropen> <51443@sun.uucp>
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 20

In article <51443@sun.uucp> limes@sun.uucp (Greg Limes) writes:
>If the sleep priority is above PZERO, the [signalled] sleep() will return
>an error corresponding to "I was interrupted!".

Unless Sun has made some big kernel changes recently, this is not the
case.  See /sys/sys/kern_synch.c, at the label `psig' in sleep().

Returning an error from sleep would be a viable alternative to `catch'
and `throw' routines, although it would entail more work.  Every driver
that now sleeps interruptably might read

	while ((foo->status & READY) == 0) {
		if (sleep((caddr_t)foo, PFOO))
			return (EINTR);
	}

and one would be safe in ignoring the (new) return value from sleep
iff the sleep is uninterruptable.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris