Hello > Wait. Are you saying that the way fork_parent() is used is to modify > the source code of fork_parent() itself?
No - you just call it, like daemon(). Then later, outside fork_parent() you call close(). > I was under the impression that fork-parent() was a library > call that you made to properly background your source code, which > exists outside of function fork_parent(). That is the correct impression. > And therefore I was wondering > why fork_parent() didn't take a function address as an argument, and > call that callback function's address where you have the elipses. No function pointers needed. After a fork() system call you have two almost identical copies of the same process. The one which sees a return code greater than 0 is the parent. The parent instance however never makes it out of the fork_parent() library call. > Yes. It makes sense. My question was where you put the code represented > by your elipses above. The code in the elipses runs outside the fork_parent() call. It could run in the main() function or elsewhere. > Is fork_parent() a template (in the general > sense, not the C++ sense) that you modify, No, not a template. > or is it a tool you use, as > is, to background code you put in a separate function? It is a library call. regards marc _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
