On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:36:43AM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Fre, 2011-08-19 at 06:55 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Thursday 18 August 2011 07:34, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > > > It doesn't; it can't. Hence my ranting. A 100% safe > > > > 100% orthogonal, useful easy-to-use AIO mechanism should > > > > have been designed > > > > > > Would the hypothetical nonblock_read() and nonblock_write() system > > > calls suggested at http://cr.yp.to/unix/nonblock.html be a good > > > enough design, or do you think something more is needed ? > > > > Yes. But this requires new syscalls. And we might need more flags > > (such as "don't generate SIGPIPE"), so the new syscalls should be > > Hmm, am I the only one where one of the first lines in almost all > daemons ignores SIG_PIPE?
Yes and no. I don't ignore it explicitly but rather: sigfillset(&set); sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, 0); sigemptyset(&set); sigaddset(&set, SIGTERM); /* and any others I want to handle */ sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, 0); This is a lot more robust. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
