Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 09:02 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > >> I guess 41119 will be left the way it is? Should we just document and >> close?
> +static int cleanup_for_exec = 0; Trouble with the submitted patch is that it isn't thread safe, I see all sorts of subtle races in this code :( But maybe I'm mis-reading things - does this only get toggled within the child process after fork()?
