On Feb 5 12:28, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > On 2/5/19 10:44 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Feb 5 09:42, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > >> On 2/4/19 3:25 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>> Are you going to test the patched branch? > >> > >> Sorry, was indeed unclear: Yes, of course! > >> Will start testing on Server 2012 while setting up a 2019 VM. > >> > >> For now, there's already this one patch I've been using with good success, > >> please add it to topic/forkables - the suspended thing is something > >> different: > >> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2018-q2/msg00039.html > > > > The collision problem shouldn't be as bad anymore with 3.0, given the > > new PID handling. However, after spending a bit more time in the fork > > code, it looks like not releasing the procinfo in the error case is a > > generic problem so I'm inclined to apply it to master. > > Heh, thanks - was my original intent back in 2018. > > > While at it, there are quite a few spots in the code which end up > > jumping to the cleanup code but only one of them calls TerminateProcess. > > Wouldn't it make sense to move the TerminateProcess call into the > > cleanup code to make sure the child process doesn't stay running > > in some limbo state, not doing anything useful but not dying either? > > Seems to make sense indeed, and the suspended processes I do see sometimes > may well be related to that.
Pushed. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
