Messages in this thread | | | From | Perry Harrington <> | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:29:07 -0800 (PST) |
| |
> > > > On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Perry Harrington wrote: > > > > > > Hmm... I do wonder about what happens to signals while vfork() is blocking > > > the parent, though. Ick. The parent invoking signal handlers isn't much > > > better then the child invoking signal handlers. One longjmp(), and > > > everything gets confused. Temporarily block all signals to the parent but > > > SIGKILL? Perhaps the only solution. And how does the child cleanly release > > > the wait_queue in its parent if its parent may have been killed in the > > > meantime? > > > > That's a good question, do you want to temporarily block signals to the parent? > > No need to. If you use sleep_on(), the parent won't be getting any signals > anyway (only sleep_on_interruptible() cares about signals).
That's what I thought I recalled from the Rubini book.
> > Linus >
-- Perry Harrington Linux rules all OSes. APSoft () email: perry@apsoft.com Think Blue. /\
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |