Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] silent fork retry with shm (broke emacs-X11)

On 7/31/19 7:25 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > On 7/31/2019 12:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jul 31 12:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >>> On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jul 30 17:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > Hi, > > following up >

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] silent fork retry with shm (broke emacs-X11)

On 7/31/2019 12:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 31 12:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> Hi Corinna, >> >> On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> On Jul 30 17:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: Hi, following up

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] silent fork retry with shm (broke emacs-X11)

On Jul 31 12:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > On Jul 30 17:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> following up > >> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2019-q2/msg00155.html > >> > >> It turns out

[PATCH v2 0/2] silent fork retry with shm (broke emacs-X11)

Hi Corinna, On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Jul 30 17:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> following up >> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2019-q2/msg00155.html >> >> It turns out that fixup_shms_after_fork does require the child pinfo to >> be