[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070410174852.88661D82F8@pipsqueak.sf.frob.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jack Steiner <steiner@...ricas.sgi.com>, acahalan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes.
> Does a parent death signal make most sense between separately written programs?
I don't think it does. It has always seemed an utterly cockamamy feature
to me, and I've never understood what actually motivated it.
> Does a parent death signal make most sense between processes that are part of
> a larger program.
That is the only way I can really see it being used. The only actual
example of use I know is what Albert Cahalan reported. To my mind, the
only semantics that matter for pdeath_signal are what previous uses
expected in the past and still need for compatibility. If we started with
a fresh rationale from the ground up on what the feature is good for, I am
rather skeptical it would pass muster to be added today.
Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists