Timeline for answer to Why do we need to send SIGHUP to a newly orphaned process group containing a stopped process? by LL3
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2019 at 7:01 | history | bounty awarded | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 11, 2019 at 19:37 | comment | added | LL3 | @cprn Only, I cannot fully agree with that Wikipedia’s definition of SIGHUP, because though historically very true due to its relation to tty’s loss of carrier events (from which I believe the very “HUP” (hang-up) name), it has factually been in fact expanded to a more generic “loss of session” events, thus including the ones not related to terminal nor interactive shells. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 19:32 | comment | added | LL3 | @cprn Yes, that's a good practical example, thank you. (Only, replace "stopped" with "terminated"). I just wanted to provide a generic answer, had to complicate it in order to provide some explanatory backing for the correlation I’ve made between kernel’s behavior and Bash’s behavior. I had thought that making that correlation might have made a good hook to help readers understand, as I believed process groups being not exclusively related to shells’ job control as a widely known fact. Perhaps I’ve been wrong about this thinking and might as well as erase it all to simplify things. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:12 | comment | added | cprn | I think you're complicating matters. Wikipedia: "SIGHUP [...] is a signal sent to a process when its controlling terminal is closed" and "the shell [...] sends the SIGCONT signal to the process, which causes the operating system to resume its execution." If you have a bunch of child processes and some of them are waiting to sync with parent you don't want them to keep waiting when the parent is stopped, hence, SIGHUP. You want the rest of them to keep going if they can, hence, SIGCONT. The child process should know how to handle each signal. That's it. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 13:51 | history | edited | LL3 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expanded answer to (hopefully) better emphasize the relevant points and back my assertions
|
| Apr 11, 2019 at 11:08 | comment | added | Jeff Schaller♦ | I moved the preceding comments to a separate chat window after one of them was flagged as "unkind". Comments should clarify the situation, resulting in either an edit to the post by the OP or someone else or as a separate post. You're both free to discuss the situation as little or as much as you'd like, knowing that comments are intended to be temporary. Thank you both for contributing accurate and useful information to the site! | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 8:33 | comment | added | user313992 | @JeffSchaller I don't do any bxxxxx chat or "extended discussions". My comment was just pointing the absurdity of this answer. Since you stepped in and removed my objections, I'll consider you the owner of all the misinformation from this answer, and responsible to fix it one way or another. Congratulations and good luck! | |
| S Apr 10, 2019 at 21:53 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Apr 10, 2019 at 21:53 | comment | added | Jeff Schaller♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 20:15 | history | answered | LL3 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |