Sebastien Roy wrote: > Peter Memishian wrote: >> > Changing when daemonization took place was a suggestion to fix the >> race. >> >> Right, and I thought your concern was that daemonizing later would >> make it >> possible that there were pending door calls across the fork() that we'd >> have to deal with. But by definition (since the service hasn't come >> online yet), those door calls must be spurious. > > My understanding (Dan, correct me if I'm wrong) was that Dan's concern > was with having two processes simultaneously servicing the same door > call, which might cause damage to the system regardless of whether those > calls were spurious and end up failing. > > -Seb
Yes, that's another problem. Dan
