Subject: Re: mv(1) and signals
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/19/2006 18:28:47
In article <email@example.com>,
James K. Lowden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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?
It is possible; because I just tested it on ffs and it works as expected.