Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> I should be happy that I figured out what is going on, but I am >> not very happy with this patch. > > That actually looks like the right patch. > > The "fflush() before fork()" thing is a real issue, and a real bug. Stdio > is buffered, and yes, fork() will duplicate the buffer if not flushed. > > Of course, I'm not 100% sure that is the right _place_ for the fflush() > call. I wonder if we should just do the fflush() closer to the place that > generates the data. As it is, we may have other things like that lurking. > > Of course, delaying the fflush as long as possible is likely good for > performance, so doing it just before the fork() (even if it may be ugly > and somewhat unexpected at that point to have to do it) may just be the > right thing regardless... Another possibility I considered is to call low-level _exit so that we bypass not just stdio flushing but also atexit(). But I think "fflush() before fork()" is cleaner. - 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