From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:03:19 +0200 (MET DST)
On Fri, 10 May 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
> If we reexecute the instruction it will take the signal endlessly,
> forever. That makes no sense.
It depends on an application. It certainly shouldn't be the default, but
a user may choose such an option for some reason. E.g. for debugging a
system with an ICE or a similar tool.
He's talking about how SIG_IGN should behave.
If you want non-default behavior, specify a signal handler instead
of SIG_IGN.
> So my original point I was trying to make, which still stands, is that
> what is being requested is totally rediculious behavior, trying to
> ignore a page fault that can't be serviced.
Why should we enforce policy on a user? If one wants to ignore such
signals for whatever reason, let him do that.
We don't specify any policy other than the behavior of SIG_IGN which
is to kill off the process for SIGBUS.
If you specify a handler you can have SIGBUS do whatever you want it
to. There are no enforced limitations, only a specified behavior
for SIG_IGN when used for SIGBUS.
The original poster has solved his problem, yet you continue to argue
one and on and on.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 12:00:14 EST