From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72960-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23123 invoked by alias); 12 May 2010 00:02:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 23006 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2010 00:02:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 May 2010 00:02:21 +0000
Received: (qmail 23852 invoked from network); 12 May 2010 00:02:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 May 2010 00:02:19 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] Checkpoint: wait the defunct process when delete it
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:02:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
References: <i2odaef60381005082323jf45a1b90h4f76e7767cfae9bc@mail.gmail.com> <201005110030.09328.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BE9D122.1090803@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE9D122.1090803@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201005120102.14931.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2

On Tuesday 11 May 2010 22:50:26, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 May 2010 07:23:15, Hui Zhu wrote:
> > 
> >> I found that when we delete the checkpoint process, it keep defunct.
> >> This is because the parent process is still running and didn't wait
> >> it.
> >> So I add a wait_ptid function after ptrace kill.
> > 
> > You're assuming inferior_ptid is the parent process
> > of the checkpoint fork, but I don't believe that is always
> > true.  
> 
> Correct.  Maybe we should add a "parent ID" field to the
> internal checkpoint table?

Sure.

-- 
Pedro Alves