From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: filesystem signal handling Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:32:19 -0400 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1083173539.2856.90.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1083097744.4780.20.camel@stevef95.austin.ibm.com> <1083165278.4694.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1083171946.2856.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1083172459.4694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve French , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dh132.citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.132]:43393 "EHLO lade.trondhjem.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265001AbUD1Rcb (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:32:31 -0400 To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1083172459.4694.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 13:14, David Woodhouse wrote: > > The reason is that we'd like to respect SIGINT, SIGQUIT and SIGKILL as > > signalling that the user wants to interrupt the operation if and only if > > the "intr" mount flag has been set. > > Is there a benefit to having precisely this implementation, as opposed > to the option of allowing only fatal signals? What standard do we need > to adhere to? It is a standard interface on all *NIX implementations of NFS. As for the advantages: SIGQUIT certainly has different semantics than SIGKILL (it coredumps!) so it can possibly be useful for debugging if some particular NFS operation is causing a hang. As for SIGINT vs SIGKILL - the only difference I can see is that the former can be generated directly from the keyboard. Cheers, Trond