From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031304AbXDJRte (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:49:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031318AbXDJRte (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:49:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55358 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031304AbXDJRtd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:49:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) X-Fcc: ~/Mail/linus Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Robin Holt , Linus Torvalds , Chris Snook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jack Steiner , acahalan@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only send pdeath_signal when getppid changes. In-Reply-To: Eric W. Biederman's message of Tuesday, 10 April 2007 11:41:20 -0600 X-Zippy-Says: Let's all show human CONCERN for REVEREND MOON's legal difficulties!! Message-Id: <20070410174852.88661D82F8@pipsqueak.sf.frob.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Does a parent death signal make most sense between separately written programs? I don't think it does. It has always seemed an utterly cockamamy feature to me, and I've never understood what actually motivated it. > Does a parent death signal make most sense between processes that are part of > a larger program. That is the only way I can really see it being used. The only actual example of use I know is what Albert Cahalan reported. To my mind, the only semantics that matter for pdeath_signal are what previous uses expected in the past and still need for compatibility. If we started with a fresh rationale from the ground up on what the feature is good for, I am rather skeptical it would pass muster to be added today. Thanks, Roland