|
My apologies, Scott. I misunderstood your question and the nature of Spawn(). My invalid assumption was that WaitPID() would have to be executed after each Spawn().
waitpid() has an option called WNOHANG that lets you check the status of one of the jobs you've spawned without stopping to wait for it. So, you can use that to check them all in a loop.
You can also pass it a -1, and it'll give you the status of anything you've spawned, rather than a specific job. That might be useful if you don't know which one will finish first.
So, it really is a nice way to handle this sort of thing.
Combing the job log might make sense if the process is itself a submitted job. The assumption could then be made that anything submitted by the job needs to be completed before the next step. That would, of course, only work once per job. My transmission and retrieval process could work this way.
Yeah, that makes sense. But, you're still left with the problem of not being able to get status for a job that has ended normally if you use this approach.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
