What are you fixing by making this less precise?
rhl120 <rhl...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, while browsing the source code of init, I found a couple of calls to
> waitpid which, I believe, could be replaced with wait(NULL). As far as I can
> tell lib/libc/gen/wait.c and lib/libc/gen/waitpid.c backup my belief but on
> the other hand I am very new to this stuff so I may be wrong so sorry if this
> is a waste of your time. The FAQ says that I should send the patch inline but
> the mailing lists page says that I can send it as an attachment so I did both.
> Thanks for checking out my commit!
> Here is the patch:
>
> diff --git a/sbin/init/init.c b/sbin/init/init.c
> index cf7ed60afe9..1456f9508f7 100644
> --- a/sbin/init/init.c
> +++ b/sbin/init/init.c
> @@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ f_multi_user(void)
> }
>
> while (!requested_transition)
> - if ((pid = waitpid(-1, NULL, 0)) != -1)
> + if ((pid = wait(NULL)) != -1)
> collect_child(pid);
>
> return requested_transition;
> @@ -1360,7 +1360,7 @@ f_nice_death(void)
> clang = 0;
> alarm(DEATH_WATCH);
> do {
> - if ((pid = waitpid(-1, NULL, 0)) != -1)
> + if ((pid = wait(NULL)) != -1)
> collect_child(pid);
> } while (clang == 0 && errno != ECHILD);
>
> @@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ f_death(void)
> clang = 0;
> alarm(DEATH_WATCH);
> do {
> - if ((pid = waitpid(-1, NULL, 0)) != -1)
> + if ((pid = wait(NULL)) != -1)
> collect_child(pid);
> } while (clang == 0 && errno != ECHILD);
>
