Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > I'm not sure about POSIX, but the manpage of nohup does not mention
> > SIGCHLD. The only signals I see mentioned in revision 1.8 of nohup.1
> > are SIGHUP and SIGQUIT.
>
> That is correct. SIGCHLD is entirely irrelevant to `nohup', as the
> slightest amount of effort
I wrote:
>> > The new POSIX draft, at least, sanctions the automatic reset of
>> > SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL upon exec().
Terry Lambert appears to have written:
>> How does the "NOHUP" program continue to function in
>> light of this reset demand?
There is no ``demand'' involved. The behavior of the s
From: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cannot print to remote printer
Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 10:48:53AM -0700
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> > The new POSIX draft, at least, sanctions the automatic reset of
> > SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL upon exec().
>
>
At 12:18 PM +0200 7/12/01, Anton Berezin wrote:
>I would also propose to guard printjob.c wait calls from this sort of
>error in the future; after all, it *was* an action at a distance, and
>it was not strictly easy to find the culprit.
Here's a patch which I think covers all the bases mentione
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > I might be wrong in many ways, but...
>
> > is it then mandatory that you `reset' SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL ?
>
> Possibly. In the general case (as specified by standards), what
> happens to SIGCHLD if it was set to SIG_IGN before exec() is
> ill-defined. Some systems will
As Anton Berezin wrote:
> > > - signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
> > > + signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL);
> Umm, I don't understand. I do not want automatic zombie reaping, I want
> exactly the opposite, and my patch does just that.
Ah sorry, i was confused.
--
cheers, J"or
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:40:12PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Umm, I don't understand. I do not want automatic zombie reaping, I
> > want exactly the opposite, and my patch does just that.
> I might be wrong in many ways, but...
> is it then
< said:
> I might be wrong in many ways, but...
> is it then mandatory that you `reset' SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL ?
Possibly. In the general case (as specified by standards), what
happens to SIGCHLD if it was set to SIG_IGN before exec() is
ill-defined. Some systems will inherit the SIG_IGN setting,
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 08:45:55AM +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> > Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > if (fork() == 0) {
> > > - signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
> > > + signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL);
> >
>
At 8:45 AM +0200 7/12/01, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
>Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> if (fork() == 0) {
>> - signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
>> + signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL);
>
>This is unportable.
His change is pretty portable, as I have been run
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 08:45:55AM +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > if (fork() == 0) {
> > - signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
> > + signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL);
>
> This is unportable.
> If you want automatic zombi
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if (fork() == 0) {
> - signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN);
> + signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_DFL);
This is unportable.
If you want automatic zombie reaping, better don't use the simplified
signal(3) handling, but inste
At 9:43 PM +0200 7/11/01, Anton Berezin wrote:
> At 2:55 PM +0200 7/11/01, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote:
> > With current as of June 20 I can no longer print to a remote
> > printer. Syslog says "filter 'f' exited (retcode=108)".
> >
> > I added a "set -x" to the filter which is a shell program
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 02:55:33PM +0200, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote:
> Sorry, I was offline for a while (broke my leg). I am now recovering
> and slowly catching up. The laptop which had this problem won't be
> back on the ethernet for another two weeks, so I won't be able to do
> more testing.
Sorry, I was offline for a while (broke my leg). I am now recovering
and slowly catching up. The laptop which had this problem won't be
back on the ethernet for another two weeks, so I won't be able to do
more testing. And maybe, since so much time has passed, I'd better
CVSup and try again.
A
At 2:42 PM +0200 6/22/01, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>with current as of June 20 I can no longer print to a remote printer.
>Syslog says "filter 'f' exited (retcode=108)".
Looking at that section of code, lpd is just doing:
if (ifilter < 0)
status.w_retcode = 100;
At 2:42 PM +0200 6/22/01, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>with current as of June 20 I can no longer print to a remote printer.
>Syslog says "filter 'f' exited (retcode=108)".
>
>I added a "set -x" to the filter which is a shell program, and sure
>enough the last action it does is an "exit 0".
17 matches
Mail list logo
