On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:51 +0000, Marc Herbert wrote: > Dan Williams a écrit : > > It's complicated. Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in > > the background actively managing the network. So there was nothing to > > restart. Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really > > express "terminate but don't take stuff down". > > Using sigaction() you can give the semantic of your choice to any > signal. Correct if I am wrong but a lot of daemons already do that to > implement things like "/etc/init.d/foo reload".
Yeah, that's also a good point. HUP and USR1 are already reserved (in mind at least, not implemented) so maybe USR2 or something. Dan > > > We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and > > keep -TERM as taking interfaces down. > > Unix signals are infinitely inferior to D-BUS. Yet they look like the > right tool for this simple job, don't they? > > > Implemented one way or the other, this new "quit" feature would be nice. > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkManager-list mailing list > NetworkManager-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list