From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSsIm-0004Ko-TD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:44:36 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KSsIl-0004JU-2S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:44:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48025 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KSsIk-0004Ix-Gk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:44:34 -0400
Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:33264)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1KSsIk-0001Vo-4x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:44:34 -0400
Message-ID: <48A177FE.6070909@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:46:06 +0100
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Handle terminating signals.
References: <48998F9E.90206@redhat.com>	<18592.28256.85302.846876@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<48A09722.3060106@redhat.com>
	<18593.24673.304649.806330@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <18593.24673.304649.806330@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Ian Jackson wrote:

> Gerd Hoffmann writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Handle terminating signals."):
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> SIGQUIT should not be in this list.  QUIT does not mean `please
>>> terminate'.  It's a signal used for debugging purposes and usually
>>> means `please pretend this program took a SEGV'.  The default action
>>> is to die and dump core, and this should be preserved.
>> Ok, we could take the SIGSEGV cleanup route, then call abort().  That
>> should come close enougth.  Does that sound ok?
> 
> No, because the program should not attempt to catch SEGV either.
> 

I agree.
The idea of trying a clean exit when a termination signal is received is
good, but do we really need the complicated fatalsig_call_handlers and
fatalsig_register_handler system?