-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Exit with 0 on SIGTERM/SIGHUP/SIGINT #1829
Merged
bmah888
merged 3 commits into
esnet:master
from
davidBar-On:issue-1009-exit-code-0-on-sigterm
Feb 21, 2025
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Couple comments on this part:
SIGINT
,SIGTERM
, andSIGHUP
(per the functioniperf_catch_sigend()
). If we want to treat an exit because of aSIGTERM
as a "non-error" exit, would it make sense to do the same forSIGINT
andSIGHUP
also?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added
SIGHUP
to theSIGTERM
for the "non-error" exit. As I understand,SIGHUP
is sent when the controlling process is terminated, so I assume any error conditions may be handled there. RegardingSIGINT
I don't know what it the right handling. As its common use (if I understand correctly) is by the CLI "control-C" then the exit code may not be important. If you think it should be added I will do that. (Another approach could be adding an iperf3 option with the list of these signals, but it seems to be an overkill.)Added
#ifdef
toSIGHUP
andSIGTERM
per commit0eb370d
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added also SIGINT per @rathann comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the changes...I think this is probably the best behavior because iperf3 explicitly has code to gracefully exit for all three of those signals. So regardless of what causes something to send a signal to an iperf3 process, it'll behave consistently in all of those cases.
I'm got a question in to the perfSONAR team (our primary constituency) to confirm this isn't going to cause any problems for that use case before merging. I'm not expecting any problems.