On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 02:36:03AM +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The 
Open Group wrote:
>     Date:        Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:29:52 +0000
>     From:        Austin Group Bug Tracker <nore...@msnkbrown.net>
>     Message-ID:  <5a1cedd82cfb7ca6b01a38e53243a...@austingroupbugs.net>
> 
>   | Then there is
>   | nothing to delay the delivery - it can happen immediately after 
> generation,
> 
> No, it can't in that case, it needs to wait until the process enters the
> kernel for some reason.   Typically if a signal is delivered to a process
> while it is in application mode, it will be the result of a kill() from

I suspect that it would be more likely to be an
external interrupt (timer (e.g. timeslice), I/O device, etc) that interrupts
the target process than a third-party signal.

scott

    • Re: [10... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • Re: [1003.1(... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... G. Branden Robinson via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re:... G. Branden Robinson via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re:... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Scott Lurndal via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to