From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-process bug Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 22:22:31 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87k69eyddj.fsf@lrde.org> <87fyj0r41g.fsf@lrde.org> <20060524112846.GA12046@agmartin.aq.upm.es> <87bqtmjrsh.fsf_-_@lrde.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1148610396 16002 80.91.229.2 (26 May 2006 02:26:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 02:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.cadilhac@lrde.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 26 04:26:35 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjS27-0000zP-0I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 May 2006 04:26:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjS26-0002mM-Da for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:26:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FjRyC-0000Js-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:22:32 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FjRyC-0000JD-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:22:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjRyB-0000Iu-PB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:22:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FjS2z-0004YM-3U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:27:29 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FjRyB-0000ki-3U; Thu, 25 May 2006 22:22:31 -0400 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Thu, 25 May 2006 10:55:08 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:55308 Archived-At: Thanks for working on this. I agree that `live_deleted_processes' is a good name. ("Zombie process" has a different meaning.) However, maybe there is still a race condition. Suppose the signal comes in the middle of the line + live_deleted_processes = Fcons (make_number (p->pid), + /* GC previous elements. */ + Fdelq (Qnil, live_deleted_processes)); Suppose it comes between there and the call to remove_process? Does the right thing happen in all these cases? If not, maybe it is necessary to block signals starting from just before setting live_deleted_processes thru after calling remove_process. Also, please remember that in Emacs braces go on lines by themselves: + tail = Fmemq (make_number (pid), live_deleted_processes); + if (!NILP (tail)) { + Fsetcar (tail, Qnil); + return; + }