[Olsr-dev] Ignoring signals

Mitar (spam-protected)
Sat Apr 10 20:59:25 CEST 2010


On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Markus Kittenberger
<(spam-protected)> wrote:
> from my point of view, if you would make a patch i would have no real
> problem with it *G

Ehm. This is adding two lines where all other signal calls are:

signal(SIGUSR1, SIG_IGN);
signal(SIGUSR2, SIG_IGN);

> BUT i have some doubts if 2 signals are really useable for all the various
> plugins,..
> what happens if 2 plugins want to use the same signal?

Then the last one will prevail when they register their signal handler.

> i think any plugin that needs user interaction should do this differently
> than with SIGUSRx

Like? So we have a daemon running and would like simple mechanism of
talking to it. Signals are often used for this.

But of course we could always add some abstraction to OLSR. Like
registering some main signal handler which would call plugin's signal
handlers one after the other.

For now I think it does not hurt if OLSR does not get killed by USR1
and USR2 signals but it could allow simple control interface. If there
will be need for something more complex someday we could complicate.


More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list