Subject: Re: signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN) -> 100% CPU
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/10/1999 14:24:33
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> writes:
> Nevertheless, uniformity of
> semantics with other syscalls (especially socketpair(), it seems to me)
> and uniformity of implementation with almost all other syscalls strike
> me as reasons enough to do the change.
On the other side of this:
* some, perhaps many, other UNIXes still do it like we do (and some
even list EFAULT in the pipe() error returns).
* fixing it wastes both kernel code space and pipe() execution cycles.
granted, not much of either, but some of each.
* it's worked this way for how many years, why "fix" it? 8-)
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.