Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 1396 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2001 20:04:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 1300 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 20:04:40 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jimpop@devsys.jagunet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200109271208.IAA17003@devsys.jaguNET.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:04:35 -0400 To: Jeff Trawick , dev@httpd.apache.org From: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: clean_child_exit, just_die and exit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 1:09 PM -0400 9/27/01, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >Does this signal-aware version of c_c_e avoid calling child exit >handlers? > >If the signal-aware version of c_c_e does call child exit handlers, >then do child exit handlers have to know they're running from a signal >handler and avoid any questionable code? Considering that the signal-aware version doesn't exist, these are the considerations that such a design should concern itself about :) >Isn't it better just to avoid running c_c_e in a signal handler >context, as my patch attempts to implement? > I think that's best (concept-wise, haven't looked at the patch yet). -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither"