From: Garrett C. <yan...@gm...> - 2011-02-23 08:02:18
|
qOn Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Will Deacon <wil...@ar...> wrote: ... > I've not heard anything further on this, but it does fix a real issue > on the platform I'm using. Do you need anything more from me for this > to be considered for committing? Kind of odd that only doing it there would fix the entire testcase as that's not the only pattern of create_sig_proc(...) that isn't handled with a wait/waitpid. It just seems like there are tons of bugs lurking under the scenes with this create_sig_proc deal because it doesn't wait, and if the parent doesn't wait, then you're just creating a ton of races potentially if not handled properly. FWIW some more synchronization may need to be added in create_sig_proc (like blocking I/O with a pipe for instance, mq_*, sem_*? mq_* and sem_* are kind of undesirable though because those APIs are buggy on different architectures / versions of Linux, and pipes are generally simple enough to express synchronization), in order to ensure that things are deterministically ordered and the results of the test are sane. Thanks, -Garrett |