-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
bl-tint2-restart needs to be stricter #15
Comments
By all means. You know this stuff better than me! (And add your name to the header info, since you have contributed a lot to the script ;) ) |
@johnraff Why is SIGKILL necessary? Does the program ignore SIGTERM? If need be, send SIGTERM, wait, check again and then send SIGKILL. |
SIGKILL should not be necessary, but the tint2 version in Jessie seems to have a freezing bug, and when it occurs SIGKILL is the only signal that will kill it. In fact, the script could fairly easily be expanded to take any process name as argument to make it a generic bl-restart for possible use elsewhere. It would mean either modifying the call in bl-tint2-pipemenu or making a wrapper script bl-tint2-restart which called |
@2ion I guess a 0.5s wait before using SIGKILL should be enough?
Although really I'm not sure if there's any meaning in testing with kill -0 in |
I've thought some more, and there's a possible race condition with the above code. During the It can be avoided by re-running the loop using the output of
|
With default tint2 processes (no -c argument) bl-tint2-restart does not kill all, and duplicate processes are perpetuated.
After Settings>Tint2>Restart tint2, one more process has been added:
After running the suggested new restart script:
@capn-damo would it be OK to substitute this harsher restart script? It uses the KILL signal to make sure existing processes are really stopped, and only starts one instance of processes that have the same command line.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: