Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] exit_free(), 2.5.31-A0 |
| |
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > exit signal 0 is already being used and relied on by kmod - i originally > implemented it that way. In that case the child thread becomes a zombie > until the parent exits, and then it gets reparented to init. I did not > want to break any existing semantics (no matter how broken they appeared > to me) thus i introduced CLONE_DETACHED. But thinking about it, 'a zombie > staying around indefinitely' is not a semantics that it worth carrying too > far?
I think it makes more sense to say that since there was no notification of the parent, we should just reparent at that point.
But in case, if signal 0 is the preferred interface then i'm all for > it - this is not really a clone() property but an exit-signalling > property.
Right. I think that it makes more sense to do it that way. Clearly the parent doesn't care about the exit if the signal is zero.
Linus
- 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/
| |