Steven Dake wrote: > The change is a good idea, but I'd rather not stick more error code > handling requirements on the user. Can't we just use try again instead? >
Hmmm ERR_INTERRUPT is already a listed return code, and most people doing communications are used to trapping something similar I think. Also I don't really think that ERR_TRY_AGAIN properly captures what has happened. But I'm not going to get anal about this. Does anyone else have an opinion? Chrissie > > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 10:03 +0100, Chrissie Caulfield wrote: >> Currently coroipcc detects EINTR returns from poll() etc and simply >> retries the operation without informing the clients. >> >> I think the clients need to know a signal has been detected. Many >> daemons trap SIGINT to help them shutdown cleanly, and this used to >> work. Now they get the signal delivered but calls like quorum_dispatch() >> do not return so they can't tidy up and close down. >> >> This patch changes the behaviour so that if EINTR is detected it is >> passed back to the clients as CS_ERR_INTERRUPT. The clients can then >> retry the operation or exit as they see fit. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openais mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais > _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
