On further thought if you want to do a lot of forking probably the best solution is to start your own init like process and fork the main directfb process from that. Then use this parent for all further fork/exec calls. Maybe it has its own small fusion world to allow ipc that does primarily fork/exec calls. Then we only deal with forking and this simple fusion process manager. Forking from complex process's is a friggin nightmare.
On Jan 2, 2008 11:57 AM, Mike Emmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be honest I don't know what all needs to happen. > I suggest we set close on exec on this pipe in the input handlers for now. > > Later of we wan't to keep some things open after exec we can consider a api. > > Note that most people including me in the end find the rlimit and > close everything > but stdin stdout stderr on fork and before the exec anyway. > > At the end of the day I'd not even try to do cool stuff with fork its > not worth it :) > We have a rich api for allowing to processes to work together. > > > > On Jan 1, 2008 9:12 AM, Denis Oliver Kropp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Emmel wrote: > > > I'm running into some fascinating problems related to forking. > > > > > > I found this. > > > > > > pthread_atfork > > > > > > In my particular case I'm having some problems with the X11 demo back > > > end related to > > > XShm getting munged after a fork. > > > > > > But I'm not clear on whats going on but since DirectFB is multi > > > threads we may need to consider > > > if a few more pthreads_atforks are needed. > > > > I did not test the FFA_FORK mode with DirectFB at all. I just used it in > > test application for the Fusion library or in other projects using Fusion > > for higher level IPC libraries. > > > > But it would be interesting if e.g. one application creates and uses a > > window, > > then forks and both processes would continue to use the window, surface or > > receive events for it. It should work... > > > > > Googling did not reveal if something needs to be done. I did not find > > > any use of pthread_atfork in the X11 server either. > > > > I'd check for fork() after connecting to the server in an X11 *client*. > > > > Is that supported? What happens with sockets? Two processes should not > > be allowed to receive the same data, should they? I can't imagine there's > > code in the kernel that "copies" the data to both processes. The server > > would also have to give the "new" client another client id, like they get > > a new Fusion ID after forking with FFA_FORK :) > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Denis Oliver Kropp > > > > .------------------------------------------. > > | DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics | > > | http://www.directfb.org/ | > > "------------------------------------------" > > > _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list directfb-dev@directfb.org http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
