Re: RFC: systemtap remote shell (stapsh)

[Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>]

On 03/09/2011 02:06 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> //   command: signal NUM
>>> //     reply: (none)
>>> //      desc: Send signal NUM to the child process.
> 
> przemoc pointed out that signal numbers are architecture-specific, so
> this should perhaps use names instead.  At the moment, I'm only actually
> using SIGINT, which appears standardized at signal #2, but changing to
> names is probably still a good idea.

On further reflection, do we even need the ability to send arbitrary
signals?  My goal with this command is just to get the running process
to quit, so maybe a simple "stop" or "quit" command would make more
sense. It'd still be implemented with a kill(SIGINT) though.  Are there
other cases where we'd actually want a flexible signal command?