From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72956-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27987 invoked by alias); 11 May 2010 21:50:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 27979 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2010 21:50:33 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 May 2010 21:50:30 +0000
Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167])	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A626B29000;	Tue, 11 May 2010 14:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138])	by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8CC8E7DF;	Tue, 11 May 2010 14:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BE9D122.1090803@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:50:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,  Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Checkpoint: wait the defunct process when delete it
References: <i2odaef60381005082323jf45a1b90h4f76e7767cfae9bc@mail.gmail.com> <201005110030.09328.pedro@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201005110030.09328.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: <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/msg00249.txt.bz2

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?