On 08/24, Bruno Prémont wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 August 2011 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Just in case... instead of WIFSIGNALED/WTERMSIG we can also report
> > the exit code in the upper bits. I mean,
> >
> > switch (reboot_cmd) {
> > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_RESTART:
> > code = 1 << 16;
> > break;
> > case LINUX_REBOOT_CMD_HALT:
> > code = 2 << 16;
> > break;
> > }
>
> That looks nice and simple!
Great. To me, WIFSIGNALED() looks better, but this is subjective and
in any case this is up to you.
> > this can't be confused with the normal exit(code), just the parent
> > should be careful, I am not sure this can't confuse WIFEXITED/WEXITSTATUS
> > user-space macroses.
>
> For recent glibc (2.12.2):
> sys/wait.h and stdlib.h:
> # define WIFEXITED(status) __WIFEXITED (__WAIT_INT (status))
> # define WEXITSTATUS(status) __WEXITSTATUS (__WAIT_INT (status))
> bits/waitstatus.h:
> #define __WIFEXITED(status) (__WTERMSIG(status) == 0)
> #define __WTERMSIG(status) ((status) & 0x7f)
> #define __WEXITSTATUS(status) (((status) & 0xff00) >> 8)
... and note that __WEXITSTATUS() does "& 0xff00", it uses the
lower 16 bits.
So the parent should read status "by hand". Not a problem, I think.
Say, a traced task reports the additional info this way.
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
