<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Signals on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/signals/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Signals on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/signals/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Handle Linux Signals in Event Loops with signalfd</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/handle-linux-signals-in-event-loops-with-signalfd/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/handle-linux-signals-in-event-loops-with-signalfd/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Unix signals are asynchronous by design: a signal can interrupt a program between ordinary instructions and transfer control to a signal handler. That model is useful, but it creates an awkward boundary for event-driven programs.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A network server may already spend most of its time inside &lt;code&gt;poll()&lt;/code&gt;, &lt;code&gt;epoll_wait()&lt;/code&gt;, or another readiness API. Its sockets, pipes, and timers appear as file-descriptor events, while &lt;code&gt;SIGTERM&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;SIGHUP&lt;/code&gt; arrive through a separate execution path with much stricter rules about what code may safely run.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
