| 1 |
On Sunday 23 October 2005 15:45, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> One question; is the waitpid(x,0) necessary in the case where SIGKILL |
| 3 |
> wasn't sent? Is waitpid(x,os.NOHANG) enough to clean up the zombie when |
| 4 |
> SIGTERM succeeds? If so, the waitpid(x,0) could be indented into the "if |
| 5 |
> not timeout:" block. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
In my finding that the previous patch doesn't work and where the problem was I |
| 8 |
found that waitpid(x,os.NOHANG) is enough. I further found that the except |
| 9 |
block could be removed if the waitpid(x,os.NOHANG)[1] == 0 check is |
| 10 |
effectively changed to waitpid(x,os.NOHANG) == (0,0). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Anyway, it seems that tee doesn't dump its remaining buffer when it receives a |
| 13 |
SIGTERM. This patch adds a 0.5 second wait before sending the SIGTERM and a |
| 14 |
0.5 second wait between the SIGTERM and the SIGKILL. The process status is |
| 15 |
checked every 0.01 seconds so the waiting is essentially transparent. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
P.S. Are the mailing lists slow or have I been kicked off (and thus will never |
| 18 |
receive an answer) ? |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives