On 15 March 2017 at 18:08, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:00:40PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 15 March 2017 at 17:46, Simon <qemu.b...@whitewinterwolf.com> wrote: >> > OK for not using SIGHUP and keep SIGTERM, SIGINT and SIGHUP to have the >> > same behavior. >> > >> > SIGQUIT is reserved for core files generation. >> > >> > SIGUSR1 is already used in 'util/qemu-progress.c' to trigger a report >> > on ongoing jobs, so it does not seem usable. >> > >> > SIGUSR2 is temporarily used in 'util/coroutine-sigaltstack.c' which >> > takes care however to preserve the original handler. I did not saw >> > any other place where it is used, so it seems to be a better candidate. >> >> I don't think we can use SIGUSR2 here -- as you say, it's used >> in the sigaltstack version of coroutines, and so there would >> be races if the user tried to use SIGUSR2 to power down the >> machine while we happened to be starting a new coroutine. >> >> SIGUSR1 is also no good, as it is used by main-loop.c as >> the SIG_IPI. > > Which means we'd be into the realm of having to pick SIGRTMIN + N for > some arbitrary N >= 0
That's pretty nasty. Why can't we use SIGHUP, again? thanks -- PMM
