From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4779 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2000 07:04:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 07:04:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 1535 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2000 07:04:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12418 Received: (qmail 1528 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2000 07:04:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200007280704.JAA22472@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:22:03 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH (?): Re: wait for non-child PID Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:57am, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > } Short of doing that, the only thing to do seems to be to rely on the job > } table. I won't commit the following patch until we're reasonably sure > } that there are no interesting cases of child processes that can't be > } detected by findproc() -- something I'm not entirely certain of myself. > > Anybody have anything to say about this? If nobody knows the answer, then > maybe instead I should commit it and we can watch for things that break. Sorry, forgot to answer this... Yes, I think you should just apply it. Since findproc() is the function used by the signal handler to find the job this is probably the best we can do. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de