On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve this, but it is a way.
>
> we should test the return value to check for an error there, the
>unfortunate thing is that since we are in a signal handler there isn't
>much we can do, I suggest to increment a global variable (which could
>for example be checked if we hit that problem by some other code in
>the main loop).
> Other ideas ?
How about this patch. It implements your suggestion.
yup, better than I would have done myself (didn't knew there was
a specific type sig_atomic_t for atomic access...).
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group
http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library
http://libvirt.org/
veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit
http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine
http://rpmfind.net/