Hello Michael,
On 08/06/2018 08:06 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Breno Leitao [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/harness.c b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/harness.c
index 66d31de60b9a..06c51e8d8ccb 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/harness.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/harness.c
@@ -85,13 +85,16 @@ int run_test(int (test_function)(void), char *name)
return status;
}
-static void alarm_handler(int signum)
+static void sig_handler(int signum)
{
- /* Jut wake us up from waitpid */
+ if (signum == SIGINT)
+ kill(-pid, SIGTERM);
I don't think we need to do that here, if we just return then we'll pop
out of the waitpid() and go via the normal path.
Correct, if we press ^C while the parent process is waiting at waitpid(),
then waitpid() syscall will be interrupted (EINTR) and never restarted again
(unless we set sa_flags = SA_RESTART), thus, the code will restart to execute
the next instruction when the signal handler is done, as we had skipped
waitpid().
From a theoretical point of view, the user can press ^C before the process
executes waitpid() syscall. In this case and the process will not 'skip' the
waitpid(), which will continue to wait. We can clearly force this behavior
putting a sleep(1) before waitpid() and pressing ^C in the very first
second, it will 'skip' the nanosleep() syscall instead of waitpid() which
will be there, and the ^C will be ignored (thus not calling kill(-pid, SIGTERM)).
From a practical point of view, I will prepare a v3 patch. :-)