Re: [PATCH 2/3] git-daemon: make the signal handler almost a no-op

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl> writes:

> Solution A is what you propose, but which I find less appealing because
> any future magic to actually setup the handler needs to be maintained
> and updated in two places.

Well, A is attractive because it leaves the window open for us to later
not rearming it unconditionally from child_handler().  I happen to think
that the interface we will use to call "signal()" is much less likely to
change than what we would do in child_handler().

> Solution C is what follows your train of thought better, because it
> future-proofs the setup as well as the handler.

Surely, we could take this route as the logical conclusion from my
maintainability concerns, except that, if we are to make things as fine
grained as you suggest, we would definitely will not have a single
"setup", but "setup" and "rearm" as separate functions.  Perhaps "setup"
may start using sigaction() with SA_RESETHAND cleared, and we can make
"rearm" truly a no-op everywhere.