From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 949 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2015 11:44:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 36041 Received: (qmail 3553 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2015 11:43:58 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f794b6d000001495-b6-55c88c1ee378 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:33:31 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PATCH: ignore EINTR in ztcp/zsocket accept() Message-id: <20150810123331.6a2d1a4e@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20150810102212.GA45526@Qliphoth.local> References: <20150810102212.GA45526@Qliphoth.local> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7pyPSdCDaYdNbc42PyQyYHRY9XB D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGfMvL2QpWM1UsfXRWvYGxg+MXYycHBICJhIrWqexQNhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBJYyiix/NUfVghnBpPExnOXmECqhAS2MUocnh4EYrMIqEpcev0bbBKbgKHE1E2z wWwRAXGJs2vPA03l4BAWsJT4uVAHJMwrYC/x+VoPG4jNCbR43sOlbBAjjSW2rHsBdgS/gL7E 1b+fmCAOspeYeeUMI0SvoMSPyffAapgFtCQ2b2tihbDlJTavecsMMUdd4sbd3ewTGIVmIWmZ haRlFpKWBYzMqxhFU0uTC4qT0nON9IoTc4tL89L1kvNzNzFCQvbrDsalx6wOMQpwMCrx8M7Y fDxUiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkghvZPWJUCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8M3e9DxESSE8s Sc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUwVobpOx/LOHf+ZkAHk/2izvzLiVNjX9+8xfyJxevCLs61so2KKuYe psr7Jv2Pyj+ZMufgupWdt2fsEpuxaZN32EWnm3XTbcq5Nj9ot5EO/bXpy1TlL18Mjq0KYlpw KOKOy4ve56f6Hy3r+yfBdj6ac52v7AULsyn78iZ9mCHe0t9/U2i6Sn2roRJLcUaioRZzUXEi ALt1VDJVAgAA On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:22:12 +0200 Joshua Krusell wrote: > Interrupting `ztcp -a` causes zsh to exit immediately. Would it be > appropriate to just ignore EINTR? That seems reasonable, and consistent with numerous other bits of IO code. I've pushed it. Thanks pws