appro@fy.chalmers.se wrote:>
> No, it's not:-)
>
> static int sig_pipe(void)
> {
> BlockSignals( True, SIGPIPE );
>
> DEBUG( 0, ("Got SIGPIPE\n") );
> if ( !is_daemon )
> exit(1);
> BlockSignals( False, SIGPIPE );
> #ifndef DONT_REINSTALL_SIG
> signal(SIGHUP,SIGNAL_CAST sig_pipe);
> WOW!!! -------------^^^
> #endif
> return(0);
> } /* sig_pipe */
>
> I'm speechless...
Guilty as charged I'm afraid. I screwed that up - I don't
know how - just a 'cut-n-paste' bug I'm afraid. Of course
once I'd done the cut-n-paste I didn't need to check it,
how could it be incorrect as it'd come from another (correct)
part of the code :-(.
This is a good example of why Open Source is a "good thing" (tm).
> Another thing! As we don't actually have any control
> over the rate this particular signal is delivered the idea of setting
> signal handler after unblocking doesn't sound like good one. I even
> would love to see this signal blocked at entry point to the handler.
> Basically I achieve this with in following way (on Solaris, relative to
> p10):
>
Your code is definately correct, and is the method we
are using in the next major Samba release (Samba-2.0).
Sorry for the stupid bug.
Yours miserably,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------
