On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Daniel Veillard wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve this, but it is a way. > > > > we should test the return value to check for an error there, the > >unfortunate thing is that since we are in a signal handler there isn't > >much we can do, I suggest to increment a global variable (which could > >for example be checked if we hit that problem by some other code in > >the main loop). > > Other ideas ? > > How about this patch. It implements your suggestion. yup, better than I would have done myself (didn't knew there was a specific type sig_atomic_t for atomic access...). Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/