Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH libnbd] api: New nbd_kill_command API for sending a signal to the command subprocess.

On 7/25/19 4:11 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 03:19:23PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >> This looks a bit funny until I read the docs at [1]. When using >> kill(2), I'm used to the function call 'kill(pid, 0)' probing for >> process existence. But on the command line, kill(1) has the behavior of >> sending SIGTERM by default when you omit a signal number (and not >> serving as a process existence probe). > > The reason for this choice is that in some language bindings we might > not have the SIG* symbols available, but there ought to still be a way > to send a default. Hopefully people will read the docs :-) Your explanation is good enough for me :) > > I pushed it with s/signal/signum/. > > Are we waiting on any other ABI breaks or would now be a good time to > do another 0.x release? I know we've debated about a flag to nbd_shutdown to give the user more control over whether to wait on in-flight commands to settle, but without code for that, I don't see it stalling another 0.x release. In the meantime, we've definitely broken API/ABI, so another release makes it easier to test against. Still, I'd appreciate a few minutes to post my possible optimization of VALID|FREE in a few more spots, though.