On Sat 15 Aug 2020 at 19:57:26 -0400, Terry Moore wrote: > David Holland wrote: > >> I would say so, especially since that would mean the child's parent is > > > no longer the process that forked it (which could break other use > >> cases). > > > > That depends on how you implement detaching, but I suppose ultimately > > it's important for getppid() to revert to 1 at the point the parent > > exits (neither before, nor after, nor never) so some kind of linkage > > needs to remain. > > > > Bah. > > > > I guess it's time to invent yet another different interface to > > fork-and-really-detach. > > No time to experiment today, but from the descriptions it sounds as if a > double fork would work, > with the child exiting immediately after forking the grandchild? Kind of > unpleasant, but nothing > new needed? My first thought was that daemon(3) does something like that already (the idea sounds familiar to me), but it does just a single fork(2) and a setsid(2). -Olaf. -- Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- rhialto at falu dot nl ___ Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on \X/ no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams, "THGTTG"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature