Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?

On Saturday 22 September 2007 16:35:56 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "John Z. Bohach" <[email protected]> writes:
> >     if (WIFEXITED(siginfo->si_status))
>
> That does not make any sense.  si_status is _not_ a wait status.
>
> Andreas.

Thank you for clearing that up.  That explains it.

--john
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?
  - From: "John Z. Bohach" <[email protected]>
- Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?
  - From: "John Z. Bohach" <[email protected]>
- Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?
  - From: Andreas Schwab <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes
Next by Date: Re: [RFC] New kernel-message logging API
Previous by thread: Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?
Next by thread: Re: Should parent's WIFSIGNALED(siginfo->si_status) be true EVEN IF the SIGNAL was caught by the child?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]