On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:36 AM Laurent Vivier wrote:
>
> Le 19/12/2020 à 19:11, Alistair Francis a écrit :
> > When mapping the host waitid status to the target status we previously
> > just used decoding information in the status value. This doesn't follow
> > what the waitid documentation descr
Le 19/12/2020 à 19:11, Alistair Francis a écrit :
> When mapping the host waitid status to the target status we previously
> just used decoding information in the status value. This doesn't follow
> what the waitid documentation describes, which instead suggests using
> the si_code value for the de
Am Samstag, 19. Dezember 2020, 20:11:13 EET schrieb Alistair Francis:
> When mapping the host waitid status to the target status we previously
> just used decoding information in the status value. This doesn't follow
> what the waitid documentation describes, which instead suggests using
> the si_c
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 10:11 AM Alistair Francis
wrote:
>
> When mapping the host waitid status to the target status we previously
> just used decoding information in the status value. This doesn't follow
> what the waitid documentation describes, which instead suggests using
> the si_code value
When mapping the host waitid status to the target status we previously
just used decoding information in the status value. This doesn't follow
what the waitid documentation describes, which instead suggests using
the si_code value for the decoding. This results in the incorrect values
seen when cal
