Re: [PATCH v3 08/19] write_or_die: raise SIGPIPE when we get EPIPE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 01:51:11PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>>> +	if (err == EPIPE) {
>>> +		signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_DFL);
>>> +		raise(SIGPIPE);
>>> +		/* Should never happen, but just in case... */
>>> +		exit(141);
>>
>> How about
>>
>> 		die("BUG: another thread changed SIGPIPE handling behind my back!");
>>
>> to make it easier to find and fix such problems?
>
> You mean for the "should never happen" bit, not the first part, right? I
> actually wonder if we should simply exit(141) in the first place. That
> is shell exit-code for SIGPIPE death already (so it's what our
> run_command would show us, and what anybody running us through shell
> would see).

Yes, for the "should never happen" part.  Raising a signal is nice
because it means the wait()-ing process can see what happened by
checking WIFSIGNALED(status).

Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]