Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.

2007-04-10 Thread Albert Cahalan
On 4/10/07, Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does a parent death signal make most sense between separately written programs? I don't think it does. It has always seemed an utterly cockamamy feature to me, and I've never understood what actually motivated it. It's useful, but the o

Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.

2007-04-10 Thread Roland McGrath
> Does a parent death signal make most sense between separately written > programs? I don't think it does. It has always seemed an utterly cockamamy feature to me, and I've never understood what actually motivated it. > Does a parent death signal make most sense between processes that are part

Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.

2007-04-10 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 04/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> So this patch fixes the pdeath_signal behaviour only sending a signal >> when the results of getppid would change. > > Don't get me wrong, I personally like this patch very much. However, Good point. I guess we

Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.

2007-04-10 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 04/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > So this patch fixes the pdeath_signal behaviour only sending a signal > when the results of getppid would change. Don't get me wrong, I personally like this patch very much. However, A long ago, Albert Cahalan (cc-ed) wrote: > > I rely on thread-to-thread p

[PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.

2007-04-10 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Currently each thread can requrest to be notified when it's parent terminates, and receive a thread specific signal when that occurs. That we set this on a per thread granularity and then send it to the whole thread group seems silly, but whatever. Currently we send a signal when the results of g