On 06/27/2007 07:52 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Index: server/mpm_common.c
> ===================================================================
> --- server/mpm_common.c (revision 549489)
> +++ server/mpm_common.c (working copy)
> @@ -305,6 +305,27 @@
> cur_extra = next;
> }
> }
> +
> +apr_status_t ap_mpm_safe_kill(pid_t pid, int sig)
> +{
> + apr_proc_t proc;
> + apr_status_t waitret;
> +
> + /* Ensure the given pid is greater than zero; passing waitpid() a
> + * zero or negative pid has different semantics. */
Ok, it seems as I am trying to become the king of all nitpickers :-):
Style of comment.
> + if (pid < 1) {
> + return APR_EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + proc.pid = pid;
> + waitret = apr_proc_wait(&proc, NULL, NULL, APR_NOWAIT);
> + if (waitret == APR_CHILD_NOTDONE) {
> + return kill(pid, sig) ? errno : APR_SUCCESS;
> + }
> + else {
> + return APR_EINVAL;
Hm. Wouldn't it make sense to log this in the case
waitret != APR_CHILD_DONE
as in the PID table patches?
This could give the admin a hint that something is rotten on his box.
Regards
Rüdiger
