On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Justus Winter
<4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> Hi David :)
>
> thanks for cleaning up after me ;) (again and again...)
>
> Quoting David Michael (2015-02-18 05:39:46)
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Justus Winter
>> <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.
Hi David :)
thanks for cleaning up after me ;) (again and again...)
Quoting David Michael (2015-02-18 05:39:46)
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Justus Winter
> <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> > * utils.c (WriteFieldDeclPrim): Generate a union with an additional
> > pointer field
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:53:11 +0100, a écrit :
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:15 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:03:22 +0100, a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > maybe you could help me find where the desig
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:15 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:03:22 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> I'm not expert on the code that Neal wrote.
>
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:13 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:57:04 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:17:52 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:03:22 +0100, a écrit :
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > > > > But again, I'm still unsure why you believe that locks are being
> > > > > inherited through fork(): bef
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:57:04 +0100, a écrit :
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:17:52 +0100, a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > But again, I'm still unsure why you believe that locks are being
> > > > inherited through fork(): before introducing a fork hook to forcibly
> > > > unlock something, one n
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:17:52 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:55 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > Well the basic problem is of course to de
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:17:52 +0100, a écrit :
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:55 +0100, a écrit :
> > > Well the basic problem is of course to detect processes generated by
>
> > There's no hidden
> > process
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:55 +0100, a écrit :
> > Well the basic problem is of course to detect processes generated by
> There's no hidden
> process in there, and the fork hook should get you done.
I never talked about an
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 08:29:55 +0100, a écrit :
> Well the basic problem is of course to detect processes generated by
> fork(2).
??
> Is it possible to find those processes having PID 0, generated from
> fork, e.g. with proc_getallpids() ?
??
> Or are they getting a PID>0 with sub
Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 10:05:47 +0100, a écrit :
> Is there something similar to lsof available for Hurd?
No, but I really believe you don't need to go that way.
Samuel
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 08:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > I hadn't realized in your previous code: contrary to what the variable
> > name suggests, this code is not actually creating an fd, so your fork
> > hook won't find an fd to unlock. I however don't know what makes you
> > say that the h
14 matches
Mail list logo
