From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3F0E76CA.8010207@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <006501c34767$758415a0$3f00a8c0@MERCURY>, <00b501c3476b$4c2b8860$b9844051@insultant.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fork: useless and painful?
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:52:35 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f5ae44ac-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

boyd, rounin wrote:
>>Look, we don't want SIGINT, okay???
> yes you do.  SIGINT kills the proc.  on windows the 'process' is asked to
> 'call it quits' and that doesn't really work, especially when the 'process' in
> in a hung state and is less than cooperative.

Actually SIGINT is a signal that can be caught or ignored
by the process, leading to a hang under some conditions.
SIGKILL can't be caught or ignored.  The recommended
procedure for terminating a process forcefully is first
send it a SIGHUP, then a SIGTERM, then a SIGKILL.  That
gives it a chance to clean up properly but if the process
isn't cooperative then it is killed eventually.