Re: PATCH (?): Re: wait for non-child PID

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx