From: Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 15:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 8 2012 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: Best practices for avoiding leak zombie processes while retaining child exit code?
On May 8, 3:10 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/ 9/12 09:50 AM, Joshua Maurice wrote:Make is perhaps a bad example. It isn't a "job server". It runs a
> > Actually, I have a new idea that I'm starting to like. My process
> You could have a look and see how gmake manages it child processes.
single "job". That is, an external cancel will cancel "the whole
process". There's no finer "jobs" in make. In this case, it's fine if
you have zombie processes for a little because the make process is
about to die, and the children will get reparented to init. The
question becomes much more interesting if you have a parent process
that is doing a bunch of independent "jobs", where you can cancel one
without affecting the other. This cancel can be either user initiated
or initiated from an internal error.
I'm just trying to write a general purpose process creation API, and
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.