Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: parallel-fetch

[Brian Harring]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote:
> > <snip comments on parent emerge not killing child emerge>
> >
> > > Either way, here's the issue, atexit registers work fine across forks,
> > > portage.portagexit is registered prior to portage_exec.cleanup, so the
> > > main portage pid sits there and waits for the kids to go away on their
> > > own, then portage_exec.cleanup tries waxing the pids.
>
> Ok.. After a few reads, I finally figured out what you're saying here.

Yeah... email to ml was just a quick update from what I tracked down 
in irc, didn't realize the email was damn near unreadable till a while 
after it was sent (and no one had commented).

> > This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can
> > tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out of portage.portageexit
> > (it's exec subsystem crap, belong in exec's atexit (where it exists)).
> > Assuming no complaints there, issues with parallel-fetch going into
> > svn?
>
> Nuking the wait is fine if things will still work the same.. I'm kind of
> wondering if ctrl-c'ing behaviour will change - how gets the ctrl-c first?

ctrl-c doesn't come in play here- just triggers exithandler, which 
calls portageexit.  What's stupid about this code is that exithandler 
has it's *own* set of kill calls in it (nothing like 101 duplicated 
bits).

Either way... exit, or nothing left to execute, python will then 
trigger atexit registered callbacks in a lifo manner.  So all 
exithandler really _should_ have to do is just sys.exit.
~harring