Stephen, if you still cannot find the problem I suggest you make a
simple test program, that can demonstrate the problem, and post it for
others to help find the problem. This may help other people in the
future.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Stephen D. Bowline
wrote:
> Marc, thank you for taki
Hi!
Not sure if this issue was on the list, google suggests nothing.
If I'm not mistaken, upon receiving SIGHCLD libev calls waitpid(-1,
...) only once, which is wrong because multiple SIGCHLDs can be merged
into one if many child processes died while we were in sighandler
code.
So correct SIGCHLD
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:28:31PM +0400, Vetoshkin Nikita
wrote:
> Not sure if this issue was on the list, google suggests nothing.
> If I'm not mistaken, upon receiving SIGHCLD libev calls waitpid(-1,
> ...) only once, which is wrong because multiple SIGCHLDs can be merged
> into one if many ch
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Vetoshkin Nikita
wrote:
> So correct SIGCHLD handler should loop calling waitpid() until no zombies
> exist.
> Please, correct me, if I'm wrong.
The code does appear to "loop" on waitpid as you describe, it just
does so by feeding itself new events until waitpid(
Oh, I think I got it. childcb() schedules EV_SIGNAL, which triggers
another call to childcb() from eventloop.
Am I right?
2012/5/10 Brandon Black :
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Vetoshkin Nikita
> wrote:
>> So correct SIGCHLD handler should loop calling waitpid() until no zombies
>> exist.
