On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:30:28PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve> It seems to me that it would be better to fix this in the > Steve> mount options for the NFS mount in question...
> Hmm. Actually, will a signal even interrupt an NFS read? It may well > be that is the only solution. The nfs(5) manpage implies that it will interrupt when signalled if mounted with the 'intr' option. I don't believe that mounting with 'soft' would be desirable (the mount(8) manpage advises against it), so the alarm() would still be needed? "alarm(10);" before the stat(), then "alarm(0);" immediately after return from the stat() (on success or failure), would be safe? Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
