On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:57:16PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > That's the last discussion about signals and I/O I can remember: > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0208.0/0188.html Well, I think Linus was saying that we have to do both (where the signal interrupts and where it doesn't), and I agree with that: There are enough reasons to discourage people from using uninterruptible sleep ("this f*cking application won't die when the network goes down") that I don't think this is an issue. We need to handle both cases, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ while we can expand on the two cases we have now, we can't remove them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fortunately, although the -ERESTARTSYS framework is a little awkward (and people can shoot arrows at me for creating it 15 year ago :-), we do have a way of supporting both styles without _too_ much pain. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
