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
Do not attach to the child before it was successfully initialized, or we
would need more sophisticated cleanup on child initialization failure,
like suppressing SIGCHILD delivery with multiple threads ("waitproc")
involved.
Improves "Cygwin: fork: Remember child not before success.",
commit
During fork, the child process requires the process table to be
initialized for fixup_shms_after_fork, while still allowing subsequent
dlls.load_after_fork to fail silently (for when the "forkable" hardlinks
are not created yet).
Prepares to improve "Cygwin: fork: Remember child not before
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
On Jul 30 02:25, Mark Geisert wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2019, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 25 14:15, Mark Geisert wrote:
> > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 1 01:55, Mark Geisert wrote:
> > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 30 15:59, Mark
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 25 14:15, Mark Geisert wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Jul 1 01:55, Mark Geisert wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 30 15:59, Mark Geisert wrote:
This patch supplies an implementation of the CPU_SET(3) processor
affinity
