RE: [LIP] SIGCHLD behaviour...

Omanakuttan,

> ...If you want the kernel to clean up
> the terminated children, the parent must explicitly set the action to
ignore.
...
ok. but why is it needed to set the action to ignore explicitly?

> Else, even though the default action is ignore, it will never be delivered
> to the process.
...
the default action of SIGCHLD is to ignore, thus that is never delivered to
the parent.

the ``else'' and ``even though'' have a bit of irony. kindly explain if
am getting it wrong.

> And init will have to take care fo zonbies and other children.
...
this sounds bit different to me! init becomes parent of all the orphan
processes and thus clears the zombies
from process table.
in what all circumstances does init handle zombies? i've never seen init
clearing zombies if SIGCHLD is
ignored by either explicitly setting it to SIG_IGN or not setting it.
kindly explain.
-
sameer oak.


*********************************************************
Disclaimer:          

This message (including any attachments) contains 
confidential information intended for a specific 
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you should 
delete this message and are hereby notified that 
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, 
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click