On 08/28/2012 09:21 AM, Roman Rakus wrote: > On 08/01/2012 03:13 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: >> On 7/30/12 10:41 AM, Roman Rakus wrote: >> >>> Hmm... I don't know much about boundaries of maximum number of user >>> processes. But anyway - do you think that (re)changing js.c_childmax (when >>> `ulimit -u' is changed) is not good? >> Maybe it's ok up to some fixed upper bound. But if you're going to have >> that fixed upper bound, why not just use it as the number of job exit >> statuses to remember all the time? >> > I prepared a patch which add configure option to enable and set the number of > job exit statuses to remember.
Why not simply use the static CHILD_MAX value instead? Feels like this is what the spec means - and conforming kernels do not guarantee for more than that anyway, counting synchronous, asynchronous and substituted commands together. However, Linux has stopped defining CHILD_MAX (not so) recently (value was 999), so _POSIX_CHILD_MAX (25 is current value, 6 is old value) would feel correct then... Anyway, now I do understand why people use pipes instead to get the child's exitstatus: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/3446/focus=3451 /haubi/
