From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:24:22 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: signals logged / [RFC] log out-of-virtual-memory events Message-ID: <20070520222422.GT2012@bingen.suse.de> References: <464C9D82.60105@redhat.com> <20070520205500.GJ22452@vanheusden.com> <200705202314.57758.ak@suse.de> <20070520212036.GL22452@vanheusden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070520212036.GL22452@vanheusden.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Folkert van Heusden Cc: Andi Kleen , Jan Engelhardt , Stephen Hemminger , Eric Dumazet , Rik van Riel , righiandr@users.sourceforge.net, LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 11:20:36PM +0200, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > > > + switch(sig) { > > > + case SIGQUIT: > > > + case SIGILL: > > > + case SIGTRAP: > > > + case SIGABRT: > > > + case SIGBUS: > > > + case SIGFPE: > > > + case SIGSEGV: > > > + case SIGXCPU: > > > + case SIGXFSZ: > > > + case SIGSYS: > > > + case SIGSTKFLT: > > > > Unconditional? That's definitely a very bad idea. If anything only unhandled > > signals should be printed this way because some programs use them internally. > > Use these signals internally? Afaik these are fatal, stopping the > process. So using them internally would be a little tricky. All of them are catchable. > > > But I think your list is far too long anyways. > > So, which ones would you like to have removed then? SIGFPE at least and the accounting signals are dubious too. SIGQUIT can be also relatively common. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org