On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Laurent Bercot <ska-dietl...@skarnet.org> wrote: > On 16/10/2015 20:29, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> >> I think killing $PPID from children is a completely legitimate approach. > > > FWIW, I dislike parricide. The flow of information is backwards; it > forces the child to know in what context it is run.
If you have a program which does not know that it is being run by inotifyd, you can create a shim which does know that: #!/bin/sh PROG "$@" test "$?" = 111 && kill $PPID > I agree with Bartosz in that it is much cleaner to encode information > in the child's return code, and have the parent explicitly support a > code that makes itexit. This does not sound like technical argument, it's an aesthetic one. You propose to add complexity to inotifyd because it's looks "cleaner". I don't see it as "cleaner", I see both ways as legitimate. But your way requires additional code. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
