Valery Reznic wrote:
Hi Shahar,The second point is that I don't need advice about how it can be done. I can think of three or four ways not mentioned here at all. They have disadvantages in relation to what I implemented, mostly in how long it takes to figure out that the daemon has, indeed, finished, and in how much protocol specific changes they would require. I am asking for opinion about that one specific way I chose, which works beautifully, but is extremely non-standard. About disadvantages of ptrace (IMHO): 1. controlling process should take care of signal processing (signals are delivered to the caller ??) or just resent them to the tracee. I am not sure signal delivery is reliable 2. You introduce new daemon wasting the tiny RAM you have. And if you please can you comment why atexit combined with execve() or SIGSEGV/SIGTERM/, handler calling the execve() cannot be more simple solution for you case ? Regards, Lev.
|
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
