Subject: Re: wait(2) suggestion
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/27/2004 01:11:28
In article <200412270033.TAA15361@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>,
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>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?
It is called WNOWAIT and it has already been implemented (I think).