[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090601182305.GA16372@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:23:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: paul@...-scientist.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate
On 06/01, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > If you are on the command line then SIGINT/SIGQUIT would be the obvious
> > > ones for this ?
> >
> > Not sure I understand. Do you mean we should treat the tty signals
> > specially ?
>
> Yes
>
> > Personally, I don't think we should. If we decide that only SIGKILL
> > interrupts the coredumping, then I think ^C should not interrupt.
>
> Wait until you have a remote session over ssh that core dumps a 2GB core.
> Then you'll understand why being able to ^C or ^\ it is useful.
Sure. But you have the same problem with
$ perl -e '$SIG{INT} = $SIG{QUIT} = IGNORE; sleep'
^C^C^C^\^\^\
over ssh.
And what if the coredumping task already has the pending SIGINT/SIGQUIT
or blocks/ignores them?
But don't get me wrong, I do agree this is useful, and this can be
implemented. But in this case, imho kill(SIGINT) should work as well,
not just ^C.
In short, I agree in advance with any authoritative decision. But
if we add more power to ^C (compared to kill), this should be a
separate patch imho.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists