On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:11:20PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > But if we know from reading waitpid(3) that waitpid should only fail due
>> > to EINTR, or due to bogus arguments (e.g., a pid that does not exist or
>> > has already been reaped), then maybe something like this makes sense:
>> > while ((waiting = waitpid(pid, &status, 0)) < 0 && errno == EINTR)
>> > ; /* nothing */
>> But we don't want to wait synchronously here, we just want to ping.
> Yeah, sorry, I forgot the WNOHANG there.
It still can potentially stay in a loop for some cycles.
>> > After the fix above, yes; in the original we would always have exited
>> > already.
>> + if (waiting != cmd->pid)
>> + return 1;
>> If waiting < 0, waiting != cmd->pid, and therefore this return is not
>> triggered, and there's only one more return at the end of the
> Are my eyes not working? If waiting < 0, then waiting != cmd->pid, and
> therefore this return _is_ triggered.
Oh, right, it's only after the modification that the code works.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html