Re: where are fsck return values documented?

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Feb 25,  4:13pm, lukem%NetBSD.org@localhost (Luke Mewburn) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: where are fsck return values documented?

| On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:33PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
|   | In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0802231040260.19597%tx.reedmedia.net@localhost>,
|   | Jeremy C. Reed <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost> wrote:
|   | >And where does 130 come from?
|   | >
|   |=20
|   | 128 + 2 [SIGNALLED + SIGINT], should not really be there, but fsck_msdos
|   | does not catch signals :-( Someone should fix it :-)
| 
| Is it worth converting fsck(8) and fsck_*(8) to correctly
| re-raise the default handler for SIGINT, as per
|       http://www.cons.org/cracauer/sigint.html
| ?

I am not sure if it is worth it, but if tested yes because this will
give us the proper signal number, not just 12.

| I'm not sure how to detect that an application exited
| with a signal from sh(1).

It depends on the trap status, if we are ignoring it, we can look
at the status code and it will be 128 + signum, right?

| (I've converted various tools in the tree to using
| raise_default_signal(3) (in libutil) so that they have
| the signal behaviour as described in the URL above.)

Good.

christos