On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:12:24 -0400 Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 16:08 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:58:30 -0400 > > bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > If the client loses a lock, we send SIGIO to the application to notify > > > it. The application can then handle the error from there. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Would SIGLOST be a better choice? Linux hasn't supported that > > historically, but we could add it. > > SIGLOST is 'defined' in the kernel as follows: > > #define SIGIO 29 > #define SIGPOLL SIGIO > /* > #define SIGLOST 29 > */ > > IOW: it is synonymous with SIGPOLL and SIGIO. This explains Bryan's > choice. > > Cheers > Trond > Right. I just wonder whether we'd be better off making this a distinct signal with its own number. It seems like there would be value in being able to distinguish between SIGLOST and SIGIO. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
