[SSSD] [PATCHES] Sig handlers cleanups

Sumit Bose sbose at redhat.com
Mon Nov 11 16:33:46 UTC 2013


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:56:12AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 09:20 +0100, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:26:36PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > While checking if our custom signal handlers properly handle errno, I
> > > stumbled on a few cleanups, they are attached.
> > > 
> > > turns out our few signal hanlders are errno safe, and tevent signal
> > > handling function is also fine.
> > > 
> > > Simo.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> > 
> > 
> > > From 8244f7619c5042dc45751ce3bbff75f2dbc03e05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Simo Sorce <simo at redhat.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:11:04 -0500
> > > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Signals: Remove empty sig_hup
> > > 
> > > SIGHUP handling is simply not implemented, so just block the signal instead of
> > 
> > it is, see te_server_hup() and the usage is documented in the sssd man
> > page.
> > 
> > > using a fake handler.
> 
> Ok does it mean I need to remove the part where I block the signal ?

no, but you have to unblock it in server_setup() and if it is harmless
to unblock a signal twice I would unblock it in monitor_process_init()
before calling tevent_add_signal() as well.

> Do you have any other comment ?

no, but I still need to test them.

> The sig_hup(int sig) function *was* useless ? Or is it there as a place
> holder until te_server_hup() takes over ?

no, I think the common patter here is to block everything in
setup_signals() and then unblock the signal when the related
tevent_add_signal() is called.

bye,
Sumit

> 
> Simo.
> 
> -- 
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list