Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754630AbZFAS2g (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:28:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751010AbZFAS23 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:28:29 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39090 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbZFAS23 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:28:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:23:05 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Alan Cox Cc: paul@mad-scientist.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate Message-ID: <20090601182305.GA16372@redhat.com> References: <1243748019.7369.319.camel@homebase.localnet> <20090531111851.07eb1df3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090601161234.GA10486@redhat.com> <20090601174159.48acf3f5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090601171119.GA13970@redhat.com> <20090601184608.6379440c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090601184608.6379440c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1289 Lines: 42 On 06/01, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > If you are on the command line then SIGINT/SIGQUIT would be the obvious > > > ones for this ? > > > > Not sure I understand. Do you mean we should treat the tty signals > > specially ? > > Yes > > > Personally, I don't think we should. If we decide that only SIGKILL > > interrupts the coredumping, then I think ^C should not interrupt. > > Wait until you have a remote session over ssh that core dumps a 2GB core. > Then you'll understand why being able to ^C or ^\ it is useful. Sure. But you have the same problem with $ perl -e '$SIG{INT} = $SIG{QUIT} = IGNORE; sleep' ^C^C^C^\^\^\ over ssh. And what if the coredumping task already has the pending SIGINT/SIGQUIT or blocks/ignores them? But don't get me wrong, I do agree this is useful, and this can be implemented. But in this case, imho kill(SIGINT) should work as well, not just ^C. In short, I agree in advance with any authoritative decision. But if we add more power to ^C (compared to kill), this should be a separate patch imho. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/