Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
|Steffen Daode Nurpmeso dixit:
|>though WCONTINUED has been implemented by millert@ on 2003-08-03
|>(according to git(1) log). In fact, testing the patched mksh(1)
|>under OpenBSD 5.4 doesn't get the event right… Ouch!
|
|OK, I’ve applied the patch⁰. Testing gives:
Great that it's in..
|or we’ll need to figure out other ways to get the shell to notice.
|
|A brute force thing could be to patch the shell to run j_sigchld()
|every time the job control builtins and kill are run (this will
|still miss some, like async notify when /bin/kill is used instead).
I think this is what the other shells (bash(1) and ksh(1) that is)
necessarily do, but i'd agree it's a flaky approach of doing
things and as such not worth the effort. (I.e. far less than
dealing with the CWD, as in [1]. But the same taste.)
[1] <http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.html>
I think more and more systems will implement the POSIX
WIFCONTINUED(), and those which define it already even if they
don't will most likely do it right one day.
I wouldn't add any code to implement fishy tracking if i were you.
Ciao!
|//mirabilos
--steffen
--- Begin Message ---
Steffen Daode Nurpmeso dixit:
>though WCONTINUED has been implemented by millert@ on 2003-08-03
>(according to git(1) log). In fact, testing the patched mksh(1)
>under OpenBSD 5.4 doesn't get the event right… Ouch!
OK, I’ve applied the patch⁰. Testing gives:
⓪ https://www.mirbsd.org/cvs.cgi/src/bin/mksh/jobs.c.diff?r1=1.100;r2=1.101
tg@blau:~ $ /bin/sleep 60 &
[1] 1399
tg@blau:~ $ kill -STOP %1
[1] + Suspended (signal) /bin/sleep 60
tg@blau:~ $ jobs
[1] + Suspended (signal) /bin/sleep 60
tg@blau:~ $ kill -CONT %1
tg@blau:~ $ jobs
[1] + Suspended (signal) /bin/sleep 60
… right, it doesn’t catch it, but… waitpid() is only ever
run in j_sigchld() in mksh!
tg@blau:~ $ kill -CHLD $$
tg@blau:~ $ jobs
[1] + Running /bin/sleep 60
So it “works”. Of course, this can probably be improved.
Either it’s a kernel issue (maybe other kernels send SIGCHLD
to parents when their children get CONTinued, but I doubt that)
or we’ll need to figure out other ways to get the shell to notice.
A brute force thing could be to patch the shell to run j_sigchld()
every time the job control builtins and kill are run (this will
still miss some, like async notify when /bin/kill is used instead).
Maybe millert@ has some idea?
By the way, I found 「find / >/dev/null &」 to be a much better
testing command because ① its activity can be seen and heard, and
② the kernel has special handling for sleeping processes and I
wanted to exclude this as error source.
Thanks,
//mirabilos
--
20:49⎜«Natureshadow» Oops, jetzt hab ich mir doch glatt beim Trinken
⎜ Mineralwasser ins Ohr gekippt…
21:04⎜«mirabilos» ist das siggbar? █ PS: سمَـَّوُوُحخ ̷̴خ ̷̴خ ̷̴خ امارتيخ
̷̴خ
21:05⎜«Natureshadow» mirabilos: was sollte dich davon abhalten…
--- End Message ---
