On 7/31/19 7:25 PM, Ken Brown wrote: > On 7/31/2019 12:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jul 31 12:35, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >>> On 7/30/19 6:07 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Pushed, with just a small formatting tweak. > > I can confirm that this fixes the problem I reported in > https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2019-q2/msg00155.html. >
Corinna, Ken: Thanks a lot! /haubi/