Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:18:39 +0100 | From | Kurt Roeckx <> | Subject | Re: wait() and strace -f |
| |
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 04:59:58PM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes: > > > I think it's related to strace being the "real" parent of the > > child. But that doesn't really explain why I need 2 childs. > > Probably, it's feature (or bug) of strace. I'm seems, if strace has > child, trace of a child is started before wait() of parent. Then, > exit() of child continue wait() of parent.
If I understand what you're saying, sleep(1) in child1, and sleep(2) in the parent should fix the problem, which it doesn't.
And it still doesn't explain why it only happens with 2 childs.
Maybe I should have mentioned this before: the wait will clean up the first child at the time the second child dies, or atleast that's what wait() returns.
> > if (!fork()) > > { > > /* Child 1. */ > sleep(2); > > return 0; > > } > > The above change is continued the parent after 2 seconds.
I know that too, as I said, only when child 1 dies before the parent calls wait().
Kurt
- 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/
| |