On 2014年01月17日 22:24, Serge Hallyn wrote: > If we could know on any system which signals to bypass that'd be > fine, but AFAICS we can't. > > It sounds to me like we should simply ignore failure at sigaction like > we used to :) Something like below. Is that what you meant? > > From 87319b691c8f65c7d61ee01e64707d0b59d11caa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:23:18 -0600 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] lxc_init: don't fail on bad signals > > Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> > --- > src/lxc/lxc_init.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_init.c b/src/lxc/lxc_init.c > index a59dd9c..b86edf8 100644 > --- a/src/lxc/lxc_init.c > +++ b/src/lxc/lxc_init.c > @@ -159,8 +159,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > act.sa_flags = 0; > act.sa_handler = interrupt_handler; > if (sigaction(i, &act, NULL)) { > - SYSERROR("failed to sigaction"); > - exit(EXIT_FAILURE); > + INFO ("failed to sigaction (%d)", i); > } > } > >
Yeah, I can live with that :) _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
