--Z0wTxTCd2IDq3u/i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part
> >>is not easily readable.
> >The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways
> >to overcome this.
>=20
> We need a way to specify "no signal".
> It can be "new flag" or "ugly SIGCHLD".
>=20
> new flag:
> pros: cleaner design
> cons: one bit of flags eaten
> cons: GNU/kFreeBSD have to detect at runtime which "no signal" have to =
use
> cons: GNU/kFreeBSD have to add "ugly SIGCHLD" for some time
> (up-to and including next Debian release) anyway
>=20
> ugly SIGCHLD:
> pros: immediate GNU/kFreeBSD compatibility
> cons: ugly design
>=20
> But definitely, it would be much, much better to have "new flag" compared=
=20
> to diverge indefinitely ;-)
>=20
> What should be name of the "new flag" ?
>=20
> #define RFTHPNONE (1<<19) /* do not send exit notification signal to the=
=20
> parent */
>=20
I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child
death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is
set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any
signal.
Please note that the signal should be checked for validity, it must be
<=3D _SIG_MAXSIG).
--Z0wTxTCd2IDq3u/i
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4bGY0ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4iB3ACg7W4IXzVsMQdGWspxVlmx2A7i
icYAnjOSgI2LR2L42ailheOMQ4OdmDOF
=ARQi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Z0wTxTCd2IDq3u/i--