On 04/12/2013 04:30 PM, MORITA Kazutaka wrote: > I didn't consider that the unexpected signal triggers the > crash_handler. Then the reason we reach the line are: > > - The default handler (for SIGSEGV, SIGABRT, SIGBUS, SIGILL, or > SIGFPE) doesn't terminate the process unexpectedly. > > - The unexpected signal has come and its default handler doesn't > terminate the process. > > Is it okay? Then I think the current message shows what has happened > clearly. In either case, we should stop the process immediately > because what we cannot expect has happened. > > Anyway, we shouldn't reach the line. Is it better to print "something > goes wrong" simply if the current message is confusing?
Okay, I didn't get clear behavior of install_handler(), which will treat the signal that happens twice differently. I think we should explicitly add the explanation of this behavior for it. Then the message for sd_printf should be better rephrased as "default handler of the re-raised signal xxx didn't work expectedly". Thanks, Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
