On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:51:28 -0600, dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 13:51 -0600, dann frazier wrote: >> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 09:03 +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> > I coded that exit on the assumption that the only reason salinfo_decode >> > would get -EINTR is from a signal. salinfo_decode 0.7 does not have >> > alarms, so the only signal should be from an external event, i.e. when >> > the user wants to shut it down. Before changing the behaviour, can you >> > find out why -EINTR is being returned in the first place. IOW, what >> > event is causing -EINTR to be returned. >> >> hey Keith, >> An strace shows a SIGCHLD, for which a handler is registered. >> Apparently this is the salinfo_decode_oem process? > >hey Keith, > Did this reply answer your question, or do you need more information >from me? It seems SIGCHLD is the corner case. Does exit(0) make sense >for other signals?
Thanks, you answered my questions. I have a lot of updates queued for salinfo_decode to make it more resilient, your patch has been included in that set, which I am stil testing. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
