[PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

[Kostik Belousov]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>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 */
> 

I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child
death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is
set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any
signal.

Please note that the signal should be checked for validity, it must be
<= _SIG_MAXSIG).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20110711/e46cf73e/attachment.pgp