From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4651A564.9090509@users.sourceforge.net> From: Andrea Righi Reply-To: righiandr@users.sourceforge.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: signals logged / [RFC] log out-of-virtual-memory events References: <464C9D82.60105@redhat.com> <20070520205500.GJ22452@vanheusden.com> <200705202314.57758.ak@suse.de> <46517817.1080208@users.sourceforge.net> <20070521110406.GA14802@vanheusden.com> <20070521124734.GB14802@vanheusden.com> In-Reply-To: <20070521124734.GB14802@vanheusden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:58:25 +0200 (MEST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Folkert van Heusden Cc: Jan Engelhardt , Andi Kleen , Stephen Hemminger , Eric Dumazet , Rik van Riel , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Folkert van Heusden wrote: >>> What about the following enhancement: I check with sig_fatal if it would >>> kill the process and only then emit a message. So when an application >>> takes care itself of handling it nothing is printed. >>> + /* emit some logging for unhandled signals >>> + */ >>> + if (sig_fatal(t, sig)) >> Not unhandled_signal()? > > Can we already use that one in send_signal? As the signal needs to be > send first I think before we know if it was handled or not? sig_fatal > checks if the handler is set to default - which is it is not taken care > of. What about ptrace()'d processes? I don't think we should log signals for them... -Andrea -- 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