On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:56:12AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 09:20 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:26:36PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > While checking if our custom signal handlers properly handle errno, I
> > stumbled on a few cleanups, they are attached.
> >
> > turns out our few signal hanlders are errno safe, and tevent signal
> > handling function is also fine.
> >
> > Simo.
> >
> > --
> > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>
>
> > From 8244f7619c5042dc45751ce3bbff75f2dbc03e05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
> > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:11:04 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Signals: Remove empty sig_hup
> >
> > SIGHUP handling is simply not implemented, so just block the signal instead of
>
> it is, see te_server_hup() and the usage is documented in the sssd man
> page.
>
> > using a fake handler.
Ok does it mean I need to remove the part where I block the signal ?
no, but you have to unblock it in server_setup() and if it is harmless
to unblock a signal twice I would unblock it in monitor_process_init()
before calling tevent_add_signal() as well.
Do you have any other comment ?
no, but I still need to test them.
The sig_hup(int sig) function *was* useless ? Or is it there as a
place
holder until te_server_hup() takes over ?
no, I think the common patter here is to block everything in
setup_signals() and then unblock the signal when the related
tevent_add_signal() is called.
bye,
Sumit
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel