From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jul 2 23:19:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA22807 for current-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA22796 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (tom@localhost) by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08558; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:16:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:16:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Chuck Robey cc: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= , FreeBSD-current , Brian Somers , Joerg Wunsch Subject: Re: ppp & HUP. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Chuck Robey wrote: > According to what I read, the HUP was to allow processes to be able to > exit gracefully (and more slowly, perhaps saving state) than the SIGTERM. > I think the HUP is kinda historical. I can't see a strong reason to kill > it, because I've never personally seen a bug caused by it. Exactly what processes actually exit upon receiving a HUP? Not many. Apparently only some user processes. Daemons NEVER exit, instead they thrash the system. Ugh. > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data > chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. > 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | > Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD > (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > > Tom