From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Q] what to do when waitpid() returns ECHILD under signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN)? Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vwtbc7ll6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vfyi07jf2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 20 02:44:33 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsULu-0008T3-5K for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:44:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965016AbWFTAoT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:44:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965017AbWFTAoT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:44:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:51844 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965016AbWFTAoT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:44:19 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5K0iFgt021826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:44:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k5K0iETd020326; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:44:14 -0700 To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vfyi07jf2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.76__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.135 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Whether we want to do that in the main() routine or when we actually do > > the fork() or whatever is a different issue. > > I do not offhand think of a place where we do fork() but not > waitpid(), and it is very tempting to cheat and do that in the > main(), since I do not see a downside to it. Yeah, it probably does make sense. That said, there are several "main()" functions, so you'd still end up having to verify that we catch all the paths.. Are all users of fork() built-in by now? Linus