[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:0.019 / U:65.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site