Re: [PATCH v4] gc: reject if another gc is running, unless --force is given
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 10, 2013, 00:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8D8EHpPGrc8MZnpvmh1j1LDudoZ0OO-zyfuDmhwLJqNsA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPrKj1bO1jBsv73beA6LoeN09S-jWq8FYOP+WQ-AFwb1dn4Wsw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Andres Perera <andres.p@zoho.com> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> 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.
> fork() returns -1 on failure, and its return type is pid_t. i don't > know what fantasy unix system has an unsigned pid_t
-- Duy