Le Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:35:29 +0100, Charles-François Natali <neolo...@free.fr> a écrit : > > So, I read your e-mail again and I'm wondering if you're making a > > logic error, or if I'm misunderstanding something: > > > > 1. first you're talking about duplicate file or socket objects after > > *fork()* (which is an issue I agree is quite annoying) > > > > 2. the solution you're proposing doesn't close the file descriptors > > after fork() but after *exec()*. > > > > Basically the solution doesn't address the problem. Many fork() > > calls aren't followed by an exec() call (multiprocessing comes to > > mind). > > Yes. > In this specific case, the proper solution is to close the server > socket right after fork() in the child process. > > We can't do anything about file descriptors inherited upon fork() (and > shouldn't do anything of course, except on an individual basis like > this socket server example).
Having an official afterfork facility would still help. I currently rely on multiprocessing.util.register_after_fork(), even though it's an undocumented API (and, of course, it works only for those child processes launched by multiprocessing, not other fork() uses). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
