Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> Stephen Shirley wrote:
>>http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/usr-src-linux-symlink.html>>>> Short version: the kernel can take care of backwards compatibility
>> Which violates the given postulate, that the signal number has changed
> from version (x) to version (y).
I don't know for sure, but i suspect it doesn't violate it.
> So if Andrew Morton in a fit of "I'm going to sort some stuff out"
> randomly changed the number the kernel set a task's sig state to, such
> that sigterm and sigkill were now mapped in the opposite direction, a
> script that was grepping the *old* symlinked /usr/src/linux + *libc,
> wouldn't adequately trap that signal number and map it back to the
> correct SIGTERM, SIGINT and those would appear to be reversed... if you
> catch my drift.
All said signals are still passed via system calls. kill() and co. If
such a change was made in the kernel, they'd have to make a new
interface, which would use the new signal numbers, and old code would
still use the older interfaces using the old signal numbers. This is
just guessing tho, someone will surely correct me -)
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!