On May 12, 3:43am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Pool) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [PATCH] rsync kills all user processes on fork failure
>
> + -- Expand all_pids[] dynamically as needed in do_fork(), to
> + avoid any possibility of overflow.
>
> I can't see any sit
On 9 May 2002, Bob Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 9, 4:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Dykstra) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: [PATCH] rsync kills all user processes on fork failure
> >
> > What's the best fix against the current CVS? Should we back out the
On May 9, 4:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Dykstra) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [PATCH] rsync kills all user processes on fork failure
>
> What's the best fix against the current CVS? Should we back out the
> previous fix because that one only solved half the problem? Somebody
>
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:44:25PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:31:18PM -0400, Bob Byrnes wrote:
> > > http://rsync.samba.org/cgi-bin/rsync/incoming?id=2762;user=guest;selectid=2762
> > Fwiw, the patch looks good to me. rsync d
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:44:25PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:31:18PM -0400, Bob Byrnes wrote:
> > http://rsync.samba.org/cgi-bin/rsync/incoming?id=2762;user=guest;selectid=2762
>
> Fwiw, the patch looks good to me. rsync doesn't seem to handle -1 == fork()
> here, lead
On 19 Mar 2002, Paul Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I filed this as bug 4150 http://rsync.samba.org/cgi-bin/rsync/
>
> We had a few hundred hung processes and reached the limit for "max user
> processes" (see the ulimit command). rsync did not handle this very
> well. It passed -1 as a PID
I filed this as bug 4150 http://rsync.samba.org/cgi-bin/rsync/
We had a few hundred hung processes and reached the limit for "max user
processes" (see the ulimit command). rsync did not handle this very
well. It passed -1 as a PID to kill(). When kill() gets -1, it kills all
of the processes
