From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 7 19: 1:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (dsl-206.169.4.82.wenet.com [206.169.4.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B180A14E2A for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:01:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us) Received: from localhost (abelits@localhost) by phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (8.9.1a/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA16840; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:59:49 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Belits To: Simon Shapiro Cc: Don Lewis , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wait4 - Proof I am stupid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Simon Shapiro wrote: > In case you are right, how would you go about accomplishing what I want: > > I have a set of worker processes, which need to get certain signals. > They are being managed by a monitor process which may need to get the > same signals but react quite differently. Also, the monitor must wait > for all the workers to exit, before doing some other work. > > I could make the shared memory channel more complex and signal > completion that way, but this is uncertain and ugly (if a grandson dies > without first telling grandpa ``I'm gone'' how is grandpa to know? Use pipes and poll()/select() on them. -- Alex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent.. now give users the option to cut your hair you hippie! -- Anonymous Coward To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message