On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:42:35PM +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: > > The problem is that waitpid() does not distinguish between "child > > already reaped" (ignorable error) and "child not in process group" > > (something bad) so that will mean some unnecessary log spam in some > > cases. > > I guess we are talking about ECHILD as the corresponding error value. > But under "non malicious child conditions" is there really the possibility > that we get here when the child was already reaped?
Actually I'm not sure there is; but I'd rather err on the side of caution here, a bunch of new scary-looking log messages can be very confusing for users. > > So, final comments on this? If there's consensus that this is the > > approach to take I'll revert the pidtable stuff out of trunk, commit > > this there, and propose the backport. > > I assume that your latest patch only differs from the previous one > in the implementation of ap_mpm_safe_kill and the additional line in > configure.in, > right? Correct! joe
