Re: usr1-signal, usr2-signal, etc.

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:09 +0100, address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) said:

>> Currently we only have usr1 and usr2 signals, but if we add more
>> (the "etc") later, this would be a cleaner interface for such
>> extensions.

> For example, we could handle SIGTERM, SIGHUP, and SIGQUIT like this
> to allow a user to handle those signals in some other way:

I'm concerned about the case that kbd_buffer_store_event_hold is
called from the signal-handler context while it is also executed in
the normal context.  This has already existed for SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2
before your change, though.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden