From owner-freebsd-current Sat Mar 22 14:33:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA04249 for current-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from isbalham.ist.co.uk (isbalham.ist.co.uk [192.31.26.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04243 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from gid.co.uk (uucp@localhost) by isbalham.ist.co.uk (8.8.4/8.8.4) with UUCP id WAA00823; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:31:23 GMT Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:24:07 GMT Received: from [194.32.164.2] by seagoon.gid.co.uk; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:24:07 GMT X-Sender: rb@194.32.164.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703222118.OAA19544@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: from "Bob Bishop" at Mar 22, 97 07:41:01 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Terry Lambert From: Bob Bishop Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): == dialing Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 9:18 pm -0000 22/3/97, Terry Lambert wrote: >> >For some strange reason, the `shutdown_nice()' in the kernel sends a >> >SIGHUP to all processes first. I've also noticed messages like >> >``Reloading nameserver'' or such. >> >> 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. -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK