On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:41:52AM -0500, Bill Michaelson wrote:
It is now indeed more discerning, but it has reported Fork failed. But
the fork most certainly has not failed! The shell command invoked has
run, and what's more, completed successfully, producing the expected files.
Does anyone have any ideas?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested:
Can you check the errno? strerror(errno); should give you a string of why
it
failed. (Just be careful not to use other stuff which touches errno after
the
fork()
Of course - very good suggestion (embarrassed I didn't think of it)...
anyway...
it returns 10, which perror tells me is No child processes.
Sooo, I suppose the spawned process is somehow disassociated from the
process group prior to execution of the wait() embedded within the
system()? Duuh... I'm still stumped, but I guess we are on to something?
On the other hand, if a fork does really fail, one might expect errno to
be 10 in that case too.
I've half a mind to break it out into a fork/exec/wait for myself, but,
uh, ugh. I guess I'm lazy. Please, briliant insights, anybody?
Checking the kernel source for sys_wait4, it would appear the child has already
disappeared (*shrug* not much of a kernel coder btw).
What is the status of SIGCHLD? if its being ignored the child will be reaped
straight away iirc. if its not, I guess it should still be around for wait4'ing.
Probably for reliablity and portability, your own fork/exec/wait would be better
I would imagine.
- andrewg
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
