[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Possible bug in wait4(), 2.1.126-129 ?
> 	* Strictly Conforming POSIX.1 Application
> * Conforming POSIX.1 Application
> * Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions
> So it is fair to say that crond and atd aren't "Strictly Conforming
> POSIX.1 Applcations", and in the ideal world, they would get fixed to do
> things in a more portable way.

Isn't it also fair to say that a Strictly Conforming POSIX.1 Application
shouldn't fail to function due to being started by something that isn't
one (crond)? While the behaviour is undefined under POSIX, should it still
be inherited by a POSIX child? A POSIX personality process should, surely,
be able to assume it can always wait() on a child, regardless of how
POSIX-conformant it's parent was?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.045 / U:4.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site