From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willem Riede Subject: Re: [RFC] Change signal used to exit scsi error handlers Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:53:02 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030108225302.GE1378@linnie.riede.org> References: <20030101210555.GS1378@linnie.riede.org> Reply-To: wrlk@riede.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030101210555.GS1378@linnie.riede.org>; from wrlk@riede.org on Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 16:05:55 -0500 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: andmike@us.ibm.com On 2003.01.01 16:05 Willem Riede wrote: > I earlier reported, that the error handler for ide-scsi exits prematurely if modprobed > from rc.sysinit. I put in some debug prints to apprehend the culprit responsible for > sending the SIGHUP signal that causes the exit. > [snip] > > Since we want error handlers to survive, IMHO that means that the choice of signal > for error handler exit is unfortunate. The source of scsi_error suggests SIGPWR > might be a worthy alternative. I think that is true. From inspecting init source, > it is not capable of sending SIGPWR. SIGPWR should never be sent by dying processes > (its sole use should be from a power daemon _to_ init to shut the system down when > the juice is running out). > So nobody has any comments? But who decides whether to make this change? >>From the source it appears that the last person to touch scsi_error.c and hosts.c is Mike Anderson. Does that make you the defacto maintainer, Mike? Thanks, Willem Riede.