From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>
To: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk
Subject: Re: PATCH: job-control
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:47:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1000131104748.ZM32056@candle.brasslantern.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200001311000.LAA29263@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
On Jan 31, 11:00am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: job-control
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} > If it really is somehow the case the "it found out that the pipe-leader
} > was suspended too late," then it seems to me that the while() condition
} > in waitjob() is what needs fixing, or we still have a race condition:
} > the ^Z could suspend the pipe-leader between the child_block() and the
} > while() test within waitjob(). All that this change has done is shrink
} > the window.
}
} No, the important bit is the child_unblock() which makes the signal
} handler be run for all pending signals (we are blocking child signals
} during most of the execution code), so that the job and process
} infos are updated.
Yes, that's exactly my point. waitjob() should enter the body of the
while() loop -- thus calling child_suspend() and allowing the job and
process info to be updated -- when there are any jobs that the shell
"believes" are still in a runnable state. It should never be the case
that the job info has to be updated by a signal handler in order for
the shell to discover that there may be runnable jobs; in that case it
can mean only that (a) the setup of the info for those jobs is wrong
to begin with, or (b) there's a condition in which the loop should be
entered but that is not tested.
The other possibility is that child_suspend() isn't sufficient to get
the job info updated, but that would imply a much more serious problem.
} Without the patch this happened only when a
} execpline() finished (shortly before that). In the test case there
} were two of them active and we need to know that the leader was
} suspended in the inner one but since child-signals were only delivered
} after the call to waitjobs(), we could see that only in the outer
} execpline().
When you say "we need to know that the leader was suspended in the
inner one," what does that mean code-wise? What is it that we "see
only in the outer execpline()"?
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-01-31 10:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-01-31 10:00 Sven Wischnowsky
2000-01-31 10:47 ` Bart Schaefer [this message]
2000-01-31 11:52 ` Bart Schaefer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-02-02 8:25 Sven Wischnowsky
2000-02-01 10:58 Sven Wischnowsky
2000-02-01 16:35 ` Bart Schaefer
2000-01-31 12:53 Sven Wischnowsky
2000-01-18 11:36 Sven Wischnowsky
2000-01-29 18:13 ` Bart Schaefer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1000131104748.ZM32056@candle.brasslantern.com \
--to=schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com \
--cc=wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de \
--cc=zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).