cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [ast-developers] [patch] kill(1) |sigqueue()| 
fixes+|EAGAIN|  handling etc. ... / was: Re: |sigqueue()| fixes+|EAGAIN| 
handling etc. ...
--------


Here is how I am planning to handle the sigqueue patch:
>
>
> Let me go over them piece by piece.
>
> 1.      Add -Q to pass addresses.
>         Currently the shell has no way of utilizing an address so there
>         is no present need.  Currently, the value field models the
>         C standard and treats value as a union.  However, it could treat
>         the field as an integer choosing the large of void* and int as
>         the size and pass the value that way.  I would add a typedef
>         for this type.  It would be an integral type rather than a union.
>         A user could do kill -q $((0x4000abc)) or just kill -q 0x4000abc to
>         send a pointer since optget will convert to an integer.
>         Programs could format the value as an address or as an int.
>         I think that this needs more discussion before adding -Q.
>         Commands already have too many options so I am reluctant to
>         add an option unless necessary.
The -q option will be able to take integers as large as ptrdiff_t as options
so that addresses can be passed, for example -q 0xffff1234.
This will show up as .sh.value=4294906420.

> 2.      Add -R to handle EAGAIN
>         I don't think that this is needed.  EAGAIN should be handled
>         as it is with fork with an exponential  back-off algorithm that
>         times out after around 30 seconds.
>         EINTR will cause a retry
>         unless trapnote has pending trap or signal to process in which
>         case kill will fail.
sigqueue will yield and return -2 for EAGAIN.  Users can issue retries.
>
> 3.      Add -C to not send SIGCONT when sending a signal.  I don't
>         see why you would want to send a signal to a stopped process
>         and not have it react.  I believe that C-shell (the originator
>         of job control) always sent SIGCONT.  If there is a need for
>         this, I could be convinced.
kill -q will not send SIGCONT.  kill without -q will.

Let me know if this is sufficient or why it is not.

David Korn
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
ast-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers

Reply via email to