From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-36130-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 5480 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2015 16:09:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 36130
Received: (qmail 16160 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2015 16:09:10 -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: cbfec7f4-f79c56d0000012ee-a7-55cb6fa31146
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:09:04 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: 5.0.8 regression when waiting for suspended jobs
Message-id: <20150812170904.2c0e78de@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <150812075858.ZM32741@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <87wpxhk970.fsf@gmail.com>
 <150730123904.ZM11774@torch.brasslantern.com> <87si84k9uf.fsf@gmail.com>
 <150731085638.ZM15733@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <150811165655.ZM31504@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20150812104351.65a4cbea@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <150812075858.ZM32741@torch.brasslantern.com>
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+NgFjrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7qL80+HGqzu0rc42PyQyYHRY9XB
	D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGWvnPGApmMlccbLpClMD42WmLkZODgkBE4m+mzvYIWwxiQv3
	1rN1MXJxCAksZZRY9PgXK4Qzg0li4s1mFghnG6PEtP+LWUBaWARUJX4uuAc2ik3AUGLqptmM
	ILaIgLjE2bXnwWqEBWwlDvz5CxbnFbCXuLdhKyuIzSlgJbHm6gOooduZJI42/wYr4hfQl7j6
	9xPUffYSM6+cgWoWlPgx+R7YUGYBLYnN25pYIWx5ic1r3jKD2EIC6hI37u5mn8AoNAtJyywk
	LbOQtCxgZF7FKJpamlxQnJSea6hXnJhbXJqXrpecn7uJERK4X3YwLj5mdYhRgINRiYf3Rt+p
	UCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivHOTTocK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5527632IkEB6Yklq
	dmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgXGd6l0L/Z+sjiodc6acOmARzbE0dUWcXemdoi/PrA3e8je4zvyzabs6
	t6CYnZvZM/Fu5ZMT+VPOu6Szfiy7+PNM+/++sG6TXZpPIjhzj+nclN53df+6SR6SwnpWjqo7
	D79gYmKPPcfZ4dD3bP7DlwYvuRXmxCWVlz8/cV/jxYH/3Dz8M3/apCixFGckGmoxFxUnAgCQ
	BDW8WAIAAA==

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 07:58:58 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> We could special-case the SIGTT* signals, we obviously know (from the
> status that's printed) which signal stopped the job.

That kind of makes sense, since very few if any(?) other signals have
this retry-and-fail-again-immediately behaviour.  Many other IO-related
signals are permanent failures, anyway.

pws