Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 10:59:25 GMT From: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): <ctrl><alt><del> == dialing Message-ID: <l03020903af5ab83f5b5b@[194.32.164.2]> In-Reply-To: <199703230026.RAA19751@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <l03020901af5a0be5df88@[194.32.164.2]> from "Bob Bishop" at Mar 22, 97 10:24:07 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:26 am -0000 23/3/97, Terry Lambert wrote: >> >> The SIGHUP was historically intended to 'hang up' sessions on serial >>ports. >> >> Processes not attached to a terminal shouldn't be sent the signal. >> > >> >That was my impression reading this exchange as well. >> > >> >I think we still have issues with propagation of signals to the >> >other processes in a process group when the group leader is signalled, >> >as well. >> >> Quite likely; but I think that's a separate issue. > >That depends on how the shutdown is sending it's SIGHUP to everybody. Yeah, but being attached to a terminal is a session thang not a process group thang. Opening this particular can of worms is probably a Bad Idea, but at the very least the relevant man pages appear to be missing some detail. I for one would be very grateful for a _concise_ description of how the whole signals/exit/pg's/sessions thing is supposed to work as it stands. If anyone is prepared to take the position that it ain't broke, I would value a _concise_ justification of that position. If anyone mentions POSIX, I'm likely to go into a sulk :-| -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03020903af5ab83f5b5b>