I agree with your analysis. I think your current behavior is probably best.
This is a general problem with all semantics that entail something active or synchronized happening on `close', e.g. POSIX.1 file locking has similar questions (though not quite as bad). As I read the Linux implementation, a process dying (even by SIGKILL) will just stick around and block until the (unbounded) linger timeout expires, before it reports death to its parent. We will certainly never have behavior like that! _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
