Re: [patch] required signals

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:47:22 -0800 (PST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Mike Miller: "re: APM & Linux 2.2.1"
Previous message: Jon P. deOng: "Re: knfsd 2.2.1 (nfssvc: Function not implemented)"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [patch] required signals"

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> Sure it is, not even counting libc 5. The kernel has code that is
> signal-specific, so it must define the numbering. The kernel itself
> uses the numbers in many places. Disagreement over allocation would
> be terrible.

There is no disagreement: the kernel specifies the numbers, and user space
lives with them.

The numbers the kernel doesn't care about might as well be defined by
the library.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Mike Miller: "re: APM & Linux 2.2.1"
Previous message: Jon P. deOng: "Re: knfsd 2.2.1 (nfssvc: Function not implemented)"
In reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: [patch] required signals"