On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 02:31:10PM +0300, Akos PASZTORY wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> 3. why the SIGSEGV handler?
> just saw it in application I was stealing this from ;)
> no special reason really, will need to look around
> and think if we can do something smart, like display
> bug report info or something.. ideas?
It is usually not a good idea to do anything after a SEGV, I just
wouldn't install a handler at all.
> How about those 5 seconds to wait after SIGTERM is
> sent to a child.. less/more/configurable?
Hm, I wonder if that's needed at all... AFAIK if you hit ^C then
everyone in the foreground process group gets a SIGINT.
well, if latrace is killed then it takes down the child
if the child terminates immediatelly there's no delay,
but if the child does not endup gracefully and handles
SIGTERM/SIGINT, within 5 seconds latrace sends SIGKILL
> It has already started to annoy me in the test run ;)
this was related to the testing of those 5 seconds
explained above
jirka
I haven't tested it but maybe killing the whole process group (kill
-INT -$latrace_pid) would help.
_______________________________________________
latrace mailing list
latrace(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/latrace