Subject: wait(2) suggestion
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 12/26/2004 19:20:33
I found myself wanting an analog to MSG_PEEK for wait(), largely so as
to make it possible to do "wait for a child to die/stop, but don't
reap/mark it" call, akin to the way poll/select can wait for data to be
available without actually reading it - some code structure comes out
simpler this way.
So I invented one: WNOREAP. When set, this bit (akin to WNOHANG and
WUNTRACED) directs that the call should not actually reap a zombie or
mark a stopped child as waited for, so that the same process will be
available for a later wait call to return. (Not necessarily the *next*
wait call, of course.)
Worth writing up and sending-pr as a change-request? Or is this
something that's already provided as a side effect of something else?
Or that would just draw the nochangeniks from the voodvork out?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B