Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:47:52 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop) Cc: terry@lambert.org, bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): <ctrl><alt><del> == dialing Message-ID: <199703262247.PAA28995@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <l03020903af5ea8035122@[194.32.164.2]> from "Bob Bishop" at Mar 26, 97 10:25:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >[...] > >It should be possible to > >distinguish a process which has made a tty it's controlling tty > >in order to get device events as signals, and a process which > >has a controlling tty because it is interactive. > > Do you mean "a process which has no controlling tty should be able to open > a tty without that automatically becoming its controlling tty"? If not, > please explain. I mean it should be possible to have two processes that are the only processes on their (-CLOCAL) tty, such that: process DCD-on-to-off shutdown-tty-revoke 1 Gets SIGHUP Gets SIGHUP 2 Gets SIGHUP DOESN'T get SIGHUP And that slattch should be set up like process 2. >From Bruce's last posting, it looks like the SIGHUP is resulting from an explicit SIGHUP send rather than as a result of the tty being revoked. If so, this may be purely a problem in the shutdown code and not a problem in the tty code at all (depends on how the revoke acts in regard to a "process 2" type process, assuming slattach is set up as a "process 2" type process. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703262247.PAA28995>