Re: [PATCH] run-command: detect finished children by closed pipe rather than waitpid

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

 



On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> So maybe that was not the right thought and we do have to special case
>> SIGTERM here?
>
>
> I wonder why task_finish() callback gets to choose a signal. The point here
> is, IIUC, when one child dies, the others must be halted, too. SIGTERM seems
> to be the only sensible choice.

SIGKILL would also do?

In case you know your children, you can also send a SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2.

Or if you want to quit the top level program, but want to keep going with some
of the children (repacking, garbage collection, networking stuff), you
way want to
decouple them using SIGHUP ?

So I am not convinced SIGTERM is the only true choice here. And because I
have no idea which of the signals may be useful in the future, I decided to
go with all of them.
--
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]