home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!veritas!amdcad!weitek!pyramid!ctnews!starfish!paulz
- From: paulz@starfish.Convergent.COM (Paul Zimmerman)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Subject: Re: Background processes not dying on parent exit
- Message-ID: <3071@starfish.Convergent.COM>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 20:59:40 GMT
- References: <1992Aug31.040048.27053@athena.mit.edu> <1992Aug31.071011.15546@u.washington.edu>
- Organization: Unisys Unix Systems Group, San Jose, CA
- Lines: 34
-
- In <1992Aug31.071011.15546@u.washington.edu> barr@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barr) writes:
-
- >hammond@kwhpc.caseng.com (Kevin W. Hammond) writes:
-
- >>I'm not sure if this is a shell problem or OS problem.
-
- >Neither; the behavior you are about to describe is normal.
-
- >> I'll start with the
- >>OS....
-
- >>I ran a process in the background from tcsh with the ampersand (&).
- >>I would have expected that when I logged out of the shell that my
- >>background processes would have died as well, but they didn't.
-
- >>Is the shell responsible for killing the background processes, or,
- >>since the shell is the parent of them and has been terminated,
- >>shouldn't the OS kill the processes automatically?
-
- >The processes are not supposed to go away unless they are suspended
- >for some reason. Another thing to watch out for: if someone logs in
- >on the tty you were on when you started the jobs, they will get the
- >output from your program.
-
- Umm, I'm pretty sure your background processes are supposed to get a
- SIGHUP when you log out, unless they are started with nohup or they ignore
- the SIGHUP signal. At least it works that way on my SVR3 system here at
- work. Is this different under POSIX? BSD?
-
- Curious,
- Paul
- --
- Paul Zimmerman -- paul@colosus.Convergent.COM
- "I toast, therefore I am." - AI toaster from _Red Dwarf_
-