lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]
Date
In article <00a901bea6c8$0fe21f60$0c01a8c0@yogibear.penguinpowered.com> you wrote:
> Why not both? Why not return the syscall with failure (and appropriate
> error code) AND send a signal.

I dont see a good reason for sending an signal to an application in response
to an syscall (expecially of the error code is well defined). Which
application would want to use a signal? It is so much work to guess which
syscall failed, so there is no reason for it. And there is no reason to
kill an application if it receives -EPERM. The application most likely want
to write the error message.

Greetings
Bernd

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.023 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site