Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Eckenfels <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1] | Date | Mon, 31 May 1999 02:32:15 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |