*BSD News Article 14722


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pipex!demon!centrix.demon.co.uk!damian
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
From: damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian)
Subject: Re: SIGKILL and kill
References: <1qo3mq$d4b@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> <9304171535.ab08751@gate.demon.co.uk> <C5nsF8.35H@sugar.neosoft.com>
Organization: Centrix
Keywords: SIGNALS SECURITY
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 21:52:27 +0000
Message-ID: <9304200033.af09432@gate.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Lines: 20

In article <C5nsF8.35H@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <9304171535.ab08751@gate.demon.co.uk> damian@centrix.demon.co.uk (damian) writes:
>> have seen a SIGKILL will soon follow. In fact I have been trying to
>> work out why sh ignores SIGTERM when at the command prompt (it behaves
>> properly when running a script).
>
>So you can do "kill 0" to get rid of background processes without logging out.

Ah so there is a reason. Still I think that is a little inconsistent. After
all SIGTERM should mean "Please *you* die, and cleanup" (as opposed to the
SIGKILL's "Die sucker! Now!" :-)). Still I suppose I can't think of a better
signal that sh could use for the kill 0.

Damian
-- 
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Damian Ivereigh            | If you can't suss out what this is replying to |
| damian@centrix.demon.co.uk | get a threaded news reader, like trn. :-)      |
| Twickenham, U.K.           | This is the best way to cut wasted traffic     |
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+