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. > > We need a way to specify "no signal". > It can be "new flag" or "ugly SIGCHLD". > > 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 > > ugly SIGCHLD: > pros: immediate GNU/kFreeBSD compatibility > cons: ugly design > > But definitely, it would be much, much better to have "new flag" compared > to diverge indefinitely ;-) > > What should be name of the "new flag" ? > > #define RFTHPNONE (1<<19) /* do not send exit notification signal to the > parent */ > 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 <= _SIG_MAXSIG).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:15 UTC