Subject: Re: make: adding .KILL ?
To: David Laight <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 11/01/2006 15:59:32
On Nov 1, 8:53pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (David Laight) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: make: adding .KILL ?
| On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:43:12AM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > I don't like the SIGKILL and I don't understand the reason for the sleep()s
| The sleeps are there to give the process time to get scheduled (and exit)
| before the kill -9.
| However the code ought to send all the jobs SIGTERM, then wait (and reap)
| a bit for them to die, then (maybe) send SIGKILL - rather than sleeping
| 2 seconds for every job.
I agree. I think process groups is a nice way to manage this.
| In any case make won't be looking for a job-token unless it has has
| additional tasks to run (and hasn't reached its own job limit).
| So you'd also have to catch SIGTERM itself and attempt to do the tidy up.
| That will fall fould because the parent make is likely to SIGKILL it
| while it is still waiting to terminate any children that are ignoring
| You also need to treat the exited jobs in the normal way - ie delete
| the (possibly partially made) target.
Yes, that too :-)