dd dies on SIGUSR1

[Chris Rees]

On 25 March 2011 03:37, David Schultz <das at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> > We are talking about a design decision taken decades ago, which quite
>> > possibly was a mistake.
>>
>> Historical reasons are not be discounted, but in this case because the
>> behavior is already non-portable, and already not be relied upon, so
>> there is no reason that changing the default is harmful.
>>
>> > Again, how many people rely on USR1 to terminate a process?
>>
>> Hopefully none. Even if there are people who do rely on such behavior
>> that reliance could be said to be a mistake or otherwise broken.
>
> Please see my previous message.  The historical behavior of SIGUSR1
> terminating a process by default is standard, even on Linux.
>
> I believe one of the original uses of the signal was to allow
> daemons and their children to signal each other.  In this use
> case, if the notification can't be delivered because the recipient
> is unprepared to accept it, termination is appropriate for a
> fail-fast design.

Since the consensus seems to be for leaving as-is, perhaps someone
could please close bin/155034?

You can state that I've abandoned it!

Chris