On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Manish Katiyar<mkatiyar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM, vinit dhatrak<vinit.dhatrak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Laurentziu Dascalu >> <dascalu.laurentziu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 2009/9/3 Kent Tu <kachin2@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> > Is this what you are looking for? >>> > http://linux.die.net/man/2/signal >>> > >>> > >>> >>> No, I can't "intercept" SIGKILL with this. I still think there is some >>> kind of hackish solution to this :-? > > How about having a parent process and then catching SIGCHLD ??? > yes....i think this could be a solution. create a parent before the child, and catches (using waitid()) SIGCHLD when the child receive exit. but then u must also distinguish between graceful exit vs being killed by SIGKILL/SIGSTOP etc. alternatively a more complicated design is this: create a piece of shared memory between parent and child. every state the child transitioned...it is updated into the shared mem. so one way is to (many possibilities exist...just an example) catch all signal and then for each signal caught....change the state variable in the shared mem. so by deduction....if the child got killed, and the state variable does not tally with the signal state last updated....it can be deduced that SIGKILL OR SIGSTOP is received. -- Regards, Peter Teoh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
