[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [MiNT] SIGPWR

To: "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>, "MiNT mailing list" <mint@fishpool.com>
Subject: RE: [MiNT] SIGPWR
From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:08:50 +0200
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <19991027203640.C55@stud>
Reply-to: <reschke@muenster.de>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

So what about SIGUSR2?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Guido Flohr
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 8:37 PM
> To: MiNT mailing list
> Subject: Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 08:30:07AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Why not just use SIGUSR1 for this?
> 
> SIGUSR1 is interpreted as a request to close and reopen /dev/initctl.
> And it should be a fatal signal.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Guido
> -- 
> http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000/
> mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de
>

References:
- Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR
  - From: Guido Flohr <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>

Prev by Date: RE: [MiNT] SIGPWR
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] About GCC 2.9.1
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] SIGPWR
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread