On Friday 16 December 2005 19:01, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote: > > > This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can > > > tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out of portage.portageexit > > > (it's exec subsystem crap, belong in exec's atexit (where it exists)). > > > Assuming no complaints there, issues with parallel-fetch going into > > > svn? > > > > Nuking the wait is fine if things will still work the same.. I'm kind of > > wondering if ctrl-c'ing behaviour will change - how gets the ctrl-c > > first? > > ctrl-c doesn't come in play here- just triggers exithandler, which > calls portageexit. What's stupid about this code is that exithandler > has it's *own* set of kill calls in it (nothing like 101 duplicated > bits). > > Either way... exit, or nothing left to execute, python will then > trigger atexit registered callbacks in a lifo manner. So all > exithandler really _should_ have to do is just sys.exit.
I mean for when a sub-process is running such as ebuild or rsync. Will portage get the SIGINT before or at the same time as the sub-process causing portage to then SIGKILL it while it's trying to exit cleanly? Given that portage's atexit handler is registered after portage_exec's, the subprocess reaping code would not have been doing anything in the past. I guess the question is more a general one rather than specifically related to background fetching. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
