Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-06 Thread Martin Wilck
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 18:46 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > This is prety close to what I had in mind. The only things missing, > that > I noticed when I was looking at multipathd's signal handling, is > dealing > with SIGUSR2 in io_err_stat.c, which it sounds like you have already >

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-05 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 06:28:05PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > Hello Bart, > > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 16:27 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 01:31 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > So, there's no reason not to block them, right? Is it expected > > > behavior > > > that a

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-05 Thread Martin Wilck
Hello Bart, On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 16:27 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 01:31 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > So, there's no reason not to block them, right? Is it expected > > behavior > > that a user running 'kill -USR2 $(pidof multipathd)' terminates the > > process? Why

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-05 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 01:31 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > So, there's no reason not to block them, right? Is it expected behavior > that a user running 'kill -USR2 $(pidof multipathd)' terminates the > process? Why do you think these signals should interrupt ppoll() > although the uxlsnr can't

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:27 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 00:16 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:23 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +, Bart Van Assche

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 00:16 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:23 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > This change looks more complicated to me than

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:23 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > This change looks more complicated to me than necessary. Have you > > > considered > > > to pass an empty signal

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 23:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > This change looks more complicated to me than necessary. Have you > > considered > > to pass an empty signal set as the fourth ppoll() argument? > > An empty set would mean that

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 21:35 +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:18 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c > > index 61739ac6ea59..85ee9b713d75 100644 > > --- a/multipathd/main.c > > +++ b/multipathd/main.c > > @@ -2270,10 +2270,13 @@

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] multipathd: fix inverted signal blocking logic

2018-03-02 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 22:18 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c > index 61739ac6ea59..85ee9b713d75 100644 > --- a/multipathd/main.c > +++ b/multipathd/main.c > @@ -2270,10 +2270,13 @@ signal_init(void) > { > sigset_t set; > > -