Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261625AbUCBMb3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2004 07:31:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261627AbUCBMb3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2004 07:31:29 -0500 Received: from mta04-svc.ntlworld.com ([62.253.162.44]:45330 "EHLO mta04-svc.ntlworld.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261625AbUCBMbV (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2004 07:31:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:31:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Ben X-X-Sender: ben@baphomet.bogo.bogus To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: epoll and fork() Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 618 Lines: 17 Is there a defined behaviour for what happens when a process with an epoll fd forks? I've an app that inherits an epoll fd from its parent, and then unregisters some file descriptors from the epoll set. This seems to have the nasty side effect of unregistering the same file descriptors from the parent process as well. Surely this can't be right? This is on 2.6.2. Ben - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/