> What details need to be conveyed other than "stand up", "sit down",
> and "roll over" (boot, sigpwr, sigint)?
depends on what you plan to do. for a minimal init handling SIGCHLD
(that is an interesting point indeed. is it really necessary ?
i still have to find out. would be nice if one could
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:54 AM Jeff wrote:
> [...]
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:25:09PM +, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > [...]
> > Okay, so your IPC mechanism isn't just message queues, it's a mix
> > of two different channels: message queues *plus* signals.
>
> well, no. the mechanism is SysV
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:25:09PM +, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Oh? And the other complaints haven't given you a clue?
> We are a friendly community, and that includes choosing to follow
> widely adopted threading conventions in order to make your readers
> comfortable, instead of breaking
Sorry for my side note: but I have to say, that these discussions are
really great!
I thought it would be just boring as it started. But from my side I can
tell you, that I learn a lot because you talk about reasons to do
something or to let something.
It's far better than "I believe" and "I
11.05.2019, 15:33, "Laurent Bercot" :
> Please stop breaking threads. This makes conversations needlessly
> difficult to follow, and clutters up mailboxes.
i do that intentionally since i find the opposite easier to follow.
that leads often to complaints on other lists aswell.
> That is
Please stop breaking threads. This makes conversations needlessly
difficult to follow, and clutters up mailboxes. Your mailer certainly
has a "Reply" or a "Reply to group" feature, that does not break
threads; please use it.
that is wrong. just read the msg queue when a signal arrives
(say
10.05.2019, 20:03, "Laurent Bercot" :
> Have you tried working with SysV message queues before recommending
> them ?
yes, i had the code in an init once, but i never completed that init.
but dealing with SysV msg queues was not such a big deal from the
code side.
i used it merely as an
