Re: waitpid() with WUNTRACED flag? (was Re: Hang on ctrl+Z after the MPSAFE tsleep/wakeup commit)

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27.12.2005, at 19:57, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Which is more correct?  I don't know.  I think the userland program
>     itself (the parent, as in your test program and in vipw) might be
>     incorrect.

I think from outside it usually should each be an atomar operation:  
first stopping all foreground processes and later resuming all them at 
the same time.  So in the common case I think the parent shouldn't 
notice either, but I know that it's not possible in the way we process 
suspend signals now.  Except, of course, if we add another sleep point 
*in* wait.  Or am I talking nonsense?  (Few sleep at the moment)

cheers
  simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part