Re: [PATCH v4] gc: reject if another gc is running, unless --force is given

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Andres Perera <andres.p@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +       uintmax_t pid;
>>
>> pid_t is always an signed type, therefore unintmax_t does not make
>> sense as a catch all value
>
> I only catch real process id. In practice we don't have processes with
> negative pid_t, do we? I can't find any document about this, but at
> least waitpid seems to treat negative pid (except -1) just as an
> indicator while the true pid is the positive counterpart.

Negative pids are used for denoting process groups in various
interfaces.  No process can have a negative pid.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]