Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: fork() wait semantics | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 16 Oct 2002 02:38:29 -0600 |
| |
Eduardo PXrez <100018135@alumnos.uc3m.es> writes:
> On 2002-10-15 20:07:43 +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 04:58:44PM +0000, Eduardo Pérez wrote: > > > As an example consider bash. In case of fork() error the program > > > isn't even run thus causing a fatal error. If fork() waited for > > > resources to be available there wouldn't be any problem. > > > > No, thank you. This happened to me more than once (runaway fetchmail > > plugins). An error message about a failing fork() indicates > > immediately that I have too many processes, and I can kill them > > (thankfully kill is a bash builtin). If bash just waited silently I > > wouldn't know what to think. > > But you are talking about buggy software. > If you software has bugs don't expect it to work properly. > > These fork() semantics are for non-buggy software.
Well that clinches it since there is no non-buggy software we definitely don't want that behavior.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |