Hello Ralph,
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:23, Ralph Lange <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that it generally would be better to check the SIGHUP handling
> before changing it.
> Did you try if changing that behavior fixes the issue you are seeing?
I've patched src/libCom/osi/os/posix/osdSignal.cpp to check first if
SIGHUP is ignored. Handler is not installed and signal is not
unblocked if the existing action is SIG_IGN. This fixes the response
to SIGHUP when running under nohup (both under glibc and uClibc).
> It would be great if you opened a bug report against the Launchpad bug
> tracker for EPICS Base [1] to report this issue. (And maybe even file a
> patch if you were able to fix it.) Thanks a lot!
Done (with a patch).
> Also, is there any particular reason to not run the IOC inside a wrapper
> like procServ [2]? That would remove the need to use nohup in the first
> place.
I've learned of procServ fairly recently and have not had a chance to
investigate it in depth. Overall, since nohup does (or at least used
to do) exactly what's needed, I've looked no further. Application in
question does not tolerate IOC restarts, so if the IOC dies for any
reason we want to know about it. I understand that procServ is very
powerful and flexible, but there so many other problems to work on :(
Thanks,
--
Dmitry Teytelman
- Replies:
- Re: softIOC and SIGHUP Ralph Lange
- References:
- softIOC and SIGHUP Dmitry Teytelman
- Re: softIOC and SIGHUP Ralph Lange
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: sequencer beta release Goetz Pfeiffer
- Next:
RE: Stream Device With Parameters Gorka Ronda
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
RE: softIOC and SIGHUP Mark Rivers
- Next:
Re: softIOC and SIGHUP Ralph Lange
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|