Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID: <36D6923F.7D37741D@cityweb.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:23:27 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna DOT vinschen AT cityweb DOT de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: process table shows already killed processes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi!

Imagine the following:

Via service manager, I have installed three processes `portmap',
`syslogd' and `inetd'. If I login now via simple console
window, I can see the following process table:

	/home/admin[1]$ ps -ef
	     UID    PID   PPID TTY     STIME COMMAND
	  system   1003      1  -1  13:11:17 /usr/local/sbin/syslogd.exe
	  system   1004      1  -1  13:11:18 /usr/local/sbin/portmap.exe
	  system   1005      1  -1  13:11:18 /usr/local/sbin/inetd.exe
	administ   1006   1006  -1  13:11:26 /usr/bin/tcsh.exe
	administ   1009   1006  -1  13:11:29 /usr/bin/ps

Now I call the KILL.EXE from NTReskit:

	/home/admin[2]$ KILL.EXE inetd
	process #286 [inetd.exe] killed
	/home/admin[3]$ KILL.EXE portmap
	process #148 [portmap.exe] killed
	/home/admin[4]$ KILL.EXE syslogd
	process #295 [syslogd.exe] killed

And, at last, I take a look into the process table:

	/home/admin[5]$ ps -ef
	     UID    PID   PPID TTY     STIME COMMAND
	  system   1003      1  -1  13:11:17 /usr/local/sbin/syslogd.exe
	administ   1006   1006  -1  13:11:26 /usr/bin/tcsh.exe
	administ   1018   1006  -1  13:15:04 /usr/bin/ps

???The syslogd is still in the table??? Ok, next try:

	/home/admin[6]$ ps -ef
	     UID    PID   PPID TTY     STIME COMMAND
	administ   1006   1006  -1  13:11:26 /usr/bin/tcsh.exe
	administ   1019   1006  -1  13:16:30 /usr/bin/ps

Oh, on the second try, the already killed processes are erased
from the table! This behaviour is 100% reproducable.

Could somebody explain this behaviour? I would like to change it
to the expected one, if it's possible.

Regards,
Corinna