From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3143 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2008 19:26:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 3135 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2008 19:26:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:26:03 +0000 Received: from mailhost5.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896924D006; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:26:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost5.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A2BDC0EF; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:26:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <494AA299.60308@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: GDB hangs on kill or quit (after following a fork child, not detaching from the parent) References: <200812122113.57018.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200812122113.57018.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > [ Michael, you're the forks man. CCing you in case see an issue with > the attached patch? ] That's unfortunate -- I haven't thought about this since implementing fork-based checkpoints, 2 or 3 years ago. ;-/ > When there are forks involved, linux_nat_kill calls into linux_fork_killall > to do the killing. But, when following a fork child, and not > detaching from the parent, we defer adding the child fork to the > list of forks (which is confusing IMHO, see below), Do you have any intuition as to why we did that? I don't remember. Could it have been related to the checkpoint case? Otherwise it could simply have been an oversight... I like your results, and your code changes look fine. Can you confirm that it doesn't adversely affect the checkpoint testsuites?