Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:11671 comp.unix.wizards:14659 comp.unix.xenix:4936
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!arabian!jamesa
From: jamesa@arabian.Sun.COM (JD Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Getting rid of a <defunct> process
Summary: You don't need to wait for a bastard
Keywords: defunct process
Message-ID: <89504@sun.uucp>
Date: 13 Feb 89 00:51:14 GMT
References: <102@avatar.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Distribution: usa
Lines: 27

In article <102@avatar.UUCP>, kory@avatar.UUCP (Kory Hamzeh) writes:
> I have written an application which forks and execs off many subtasks.
> The main process (the parent which does all of the forks) can not
> do a wait() because I can't get blocked for anything. Well, this results
> in a lot of "<defunct>" processes in the process table when the child
> exits.

	Simply replace:

		if (fork() == 0)
			run_child_code();

	With a lintable version of:

		if (fork() == 0)
			fork() ? _exit() : run_child_code();
		else
			wait(0);	/* reap the "dummy" process */

	When your orphaned grandchild exits it will now be reaped by the Grim
	Reaper.  "Bastards" don't become "zombies".  (Holy metaphor, Batman!)

	(On the other hand, "morally", if a process is worth running, its exit
	status is worth inspecting.  You can get it "asynchronously" with
	SIGCHLD and/or wait3().)

	-- James Allen