Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:43:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Petr Salinger <Petr.Salinger@seznam.cz> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork() Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111718440.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> In-Reply-To: <20110711150614.GV43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <CAOfDtXMe_pkBdAFpUdvzmfs38Re=nw_YBz4w0Va0naEcuak7iw@mail.gmail.com> <20110711123332.GS43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111455230.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711133342.GT43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111556000.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711142232.GU43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111641340.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711150614.GV43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part
>> is not easily readable.
> The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways
> to overcome this.
We need a way to specify "no signal".
It can be "new flag" or "ugly SIGCHLD".
new flag:
pros: cleaner design
cons: one bit of flags eaten
cons: GNU/kFreeBSD have to detect at runtime which "no signal" have to use
cons: GNU/kFreeBSD have to add "ugly SIGCHLD" for some time
(up-to and including next Debian release) anyway
ugly SIGCHLD:
pros: immediate GNU/kFreeBSD compatibility
cons: ugly design
But definitely, it would be much, much better to have "new flag" compared
to diverge indefinitely ;-)
What should be name of the "new flag" ?
#define RFTHPNONE (1<<19) /* do not send exit notification signal to the parent */
Petr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111718440.7134>