Subject: Re: mv(1) and signals
To: None <email@example.com>
From: James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/18/2006 22:45:40
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >Does anyone else think ^C should kill mv(1), first time, every
> Yes, and it does... I don't know why it did not in your case.
> If you look in the source for mv.c it just forks and execs cp and rm
> when source and destination are not in the same filesystem.
Beggin' to differ with you, Captain. I showed you the errors from mv. I
showed you the process from ps. I told you it kept copying the files.
I'm sure we agree my process wasn't killed, as that term is commonly
The mv process died; I got back control as soon as I pressed ^C. It was
evidently the exec'ed child that was invulnerable. Several files had been
copied, so it wouldn't seem to be a question of timing.
Is it possible that the target filesystem (smbfs) is significant?
I thought the behavior I witnessed was expected. Since it's not, could
someone suggest a more precise test to isolate the problem? Because it
obviously *can* happen.