Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Wed Sep 10 21:33:26 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8B4XQ0m029831 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:33:26 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8B4X3dA028213 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:33:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200809110433.m8B4X3dA028213@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: graceful shutdown Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:33:03 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > during graceful shutdown,'m using Kill(child's process id, 9); > should I also use waitpid to check the status of child or should I assume > KILL will surely terminate the child process. > > I read somewhere online that if 2nd argument is 9 in Kill function, it will > forcefully terminate the child and hence there will be no Zombie process > > Do u think there's any need to double check if the child has really > terminated or not. Signal 9 is SIGKILL and there is nothing *graceful* about that! -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu