From owner-freebsd-current Tue Feb 6 9:21:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wgate.com (mail.wgate.com [38.219.83.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B0037B503 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from jesup.eng.tvol.net ([10.32.2.26]) by mail.wgate.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id 1LYSFYM6; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:21:00 -0500 Reply-To: Randell Jesup To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Please review sh SIGSTOP fix From: Randell Jesup Date: 06 Feb 2001 12:25:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Martin Cracauer's message of "Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:50:41 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Martin Cracauer writes: >would you please have a look at the following sh fix? My brain is a >bit rusty and maybe I overlook a drawback. > >When a child is receiving SIGSTOP, eval continues with the next >command. While that is correct for the interactive case (Control-Z >and you get the prompt back), it is wrong for a shellscript, which >just continues with the next command, never again waiting for the >stopped child. Noted when childs from cronjobs were stopped, just to >make more processes (by wosch). Careful - is this behavior used as a feature during boot when starting services? I.e. you can ^Z and it will continue with the next service; effectively backgrounding the service that's waiting. I.e. is this a feature (perhaps accidental) that people assume and rely on? And if so, is there another way to get the functionality, and is it important to people? Perhaps I'm totally wrong here and misunderstood the issue. -- Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94) rjesup@wgate.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message