Hi Corinna, On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Jul 30 17:22, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> following up >> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2019-q2/msg00155.html >> >> It turns out that fixup_shms_after_fork does require the child pinfo to >> be "remember"ed, while the fork retry to be silent on failure requires >> the child to not be "attach"ed yet. >> >> As current pinfo.remember performs both "remember" and "attach" at once, >> the first patch does introduce pinfo.remember_without_attach, to not >> change current behaviour of pinfo.remember and keep patches small. >> >> However, my first thought was to clean up pinfo API a little and have >> remember not do both "remember+attach" at once, but introduce some new >> remember_and_attach method instead. But then, when 'bool detach' is >> true, the "_and_attach" does feel wrong. > > I'd prefer to drop the reattach call from remember, calling both of them > where appropriate. >
Fine with me, even if that looks a little more complicated for spawn. Thanks! /haubi/