> On June 13, 2013, 7:32 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp, line 1118 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11848/diff/1/?file=304301#file304301line1118> > > > > Is there the need to check for zombie processes? The semantics of > > "alive" would suggest that zombies are not considered alive ;) > > > > I'd be happy to add another function should we require different > > semantics at some point, but it seems at the moment we simply want an > > "alive"ness check?
Sorry I overlooked this comment. In Reaper::monitor(), if exists(pid) is false we can directly return None() because there is nothing to monitor; if exists(pid) is true but alive(pid) is false we can still potentially reap the exit status. I guess this is where the semantical differences can be leveraged. - Jiang Yan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11848/#review21871 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 20, 2013, 3:27 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/11848/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 20, 2013, 3:27 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Vinod Kone. > > > Description > ------- > > os::alive currently considers zombie processes to be alive, which is less > than optimal, as semantically they are "dead" and waiting to be reaped. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp > 1b3fb47d7567b5467fef2a2bb15d5c4a2ea42aa5 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/linux.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/osx.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/process.hpp > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11848/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This was tested through my killtree change, although it would be nice to have > tests once we have an abstraction for creating arbitrary process trees. > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
