Fix for CR #6793120 ... / was: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 u

[Marc Glisse]

> If you start the command as seperate child job (e.g.
> $ sleep 12345 & #)
> it will always have a seperate pid. But that was not
> the problem which
> caused CR #6793120 - the process name changed from
> "sleep 12345" to
> something like "ksh93 sleep 12345" which caused the
> PIT test scripts to
> fail because they matched exactly for the process
> name "sleep 12345".
> The upcoming patch makes sure the processes get their
> expected name.

Hello,

just making sure I understand correctly. With the fix (making sleep a binary), calling /usr/bin/sleep will have the expected name, calling sleep usually won't have any name (or process), and calling sleep& will have:
a) an unexpected name (something like ksh93) as ksh93 just forks and changing the name would require a hack or an exec,
b) the expected name, because ksh93 calls posix_spawn(/usr/bin/sleep), although my limited understanding says this does not look optimal from a performance point of view.

Which one is it?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org