[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140301033738.GA23191@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 07:37:38 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Status request signallling to children or MPI nodes.
magnum,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:01:18PM +0100, magnum wrote:
> Is there a reason you picked SIGUSR2 for fork mode's signalling to
> children instead of SIGUSR1, that the MPI code has used for ages for the
> same thing? I have a patch that changes your code to use SIGUSR1 and
> drops the specific MPI code but I thought you might have had a good
> reason for not doing that?
I recall briefly thinking about this when writing that code, but I no
longer recall why I chose that specific signal.
Maybe you can try moving the MPI code's signal to SIGUSR2, and free up
SIGUSR1 for your new use? That way, no change to core would be needed.
Thanks for asking!
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
