From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 13:11:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat/mingw: Allow SIGKILL to kill in mingw_kill.
Message-ID: <7c0384e2-0d8c-17f2-9881-cf14b24c0a21@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwlwwt0mj.fsf@gitster.g>

Hi Junio & Siddh,

On Fri, 22 May 2026, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> > mingw_kill() only allows SIGTERM for killing a process.
> >
> > Let's also allow the natural SIGKILL for the same so that callers don't
> > have to do ifdef soup for special Windows handling.
>
> [...]
> 
> The current code only handles TERM (to terminate) or 0 (to probe)
> and everything else results in EINVAL, so the updated behaviour is
> to pretend as if TERM is sent and do whatever PROCESS_TERMINATE
> does, instead of doing nothing and erroring with EINVAL.  Which does
> sound like an improvement over the status quo.
> 
> What I am wondering is if there are different kind of "kill" in the
> Windows land, just like there are distinction between TERM and KILL.
> For example, the program ought to be able to block TERM but not
> KILL.  There are other termination-inducing signals like SIGQUIT but
> until we start using them in our code, this emulation layer does not
> have to know about them, I think.

The version that that Git for Windows carries is actually really
different. For one, it gives processes a chance to run their `atexit()`
handlers when being terminated via `SIGTERM`.

I'm afraid that the patch under discussion would severely conflict with
Git for Windows' code. Git for Windows' code, that is, that should have
been upstreamed a long time ago, but wasn't, out of time constraints.

I'll try to polish the patches and upstream them.

Ciao,
Johannes