From my reading of the code, it seems that there are no longer any
circumstances where pmap_activate() will be called with non-curlwp, at least in
MI code.
Is this a correct reading?
-- thorpej
David Holland wrote:
>> I would say so, especially since that would mean the child's parent is
> > no longer the process that forked it (which could break other use
>> cases).
>
> That depends on how you implement detaching, but I suppose ultimately
> it's important for getppid() to revert to 1
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 07:24:01AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >>> What I observe is that a process that explicitly ignores SIGCHLD
> >>> (SIG_IGN), then forks a child which exits, when wait()ing for the
> >>> child, gets ECHILD (i.e., wait returns -1 and errno is ECHILD).
> >> And the ECHILD return
> When I install a SIGCHLD handler via sigaction() using SA_SIGINFO, is
> it guaranteed that my handler is called (at least) once per
> death-of-a-child?
"Maybe." It depends on how portable you want to be.
Historically, "no": in some older systems, a second SIGCHLD delivered
when there's
Another question in the context of SIGCHLD:
When I install a SIGCHLD handler via sigaction() using SA_SIGINFO,
is it guaranteed that my handler is called (at least) once per
death-of-a-child? There is sentence in SUS
If SA_SIGINFO is set in sa_flags, then subsequent occurrences of sig
> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 19:59:24 +0100
> From: Robert Swindells
>
> Is anyone working on the proposed solution to kern/55230 ?
thorpej was working on it and has a patch -- I thought it got
committed, but I guess not? There might have been some hard-to-fix
bug remainining in it but I forget
Is anyone working on the proposed solution to kern/55230 ?
>>> What I observe is that a process that explicitly ignores SIGCHLD
>>> (SIG_IGN), then forks a child which exits, when wait()ing for the
>>> child, gets ECHILD (i.e., wait returns -1 and errno is ECHILD).
>> And the ECHILD return is delayed until all children have terminated
> Huh, I hadn't
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:51:12PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > What I observe is that a process that explicitly ignores SIGCHLD
> > (SIG_IGN), then forks a child which exits, when wait()ing for the
> > child, gets ECHILD (i.e., wait returns -1 and errno is ECHILD).
>
> And the ECHILD return is
