[BusyBox] Init problems?!?

[Jem X]

Yippeee... I'm not going crazy then. I haven't had a chance to try out the 
ash shell offered to me, work has been so busy and as my "wait for a second" 
fix seems to do the trick I haven't had a chance to re-visit the problem.

I have had one thought (not fully researched yet), and that is whenever the 
init application fork()'s it is a toss-up whether the forked process 
executes first or the originating process. I have had this problem before 
where due to the indeterminate nature of a fork() occasionally processes 
would be left orphaned if the parent died to quick (don't even know if this 
would affect things). I wonder if a bit of signalling could sort this out to 
ensure the child executes first?

As I say, time is limited but I will try and look into this some more soon.

Jem

>
>Jem X wrote:
> > Thanks guys for totally ignoring my question on init problems :-(. I do
> > realise that work is done by people volunteering information, but even
> > someone dropping a single line to say, yes, that's what we expect to
> > happen, would be helpful.
> >
> > I still have issues with "something" grabbing the VT away from my
> > application if I don't delay each script launched from /etc/rc.d/rcS by
> > 1 second. If noone can answer these problems could someone at least
> > point me somewhere where I could get them answered?
>
>Hi,
>
>I have the same problem, often even 1 second is not enough as delay.
>It would be very helpfull, if somebody has a fix for this problem.
>I'm not a C programmer, so I can't solve the problem.
>
>
>--
>
>cu
>   Heiko
>
>http://www.devil-linux.org
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>busybox mailing list
>busybox at busybox.net
>http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp