[erlang-questions] link

John Erickson <>
Mon Apr 19 18:53:18 CEST 2010


Hello, I have not set up any traps on any process.  Could there be another
explanation?

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Robert Virding <> wrote:

> From the way you have described it, it seems like all the processes
> have been explicitly linked to the root process. This does not
> automatically mean that they are linked to each other, they are only
> linked to the root process. If one of them crashes then the exit
> signal goes to the root process. If the root process is trapping exits
> and does not itself crash then the exist signal will not be
> transmitted to the other processes which will then continue.
>
> Is this what you meant?
>
> Robert
>
> On 14 April 2010 19:17, John Erickson <> wrote:
> > Hello, in this case I don't think there is any normal termination at all,
> > just a network delay that causes the other nodes to think this node is
> down.
> >  Is there any way for the other nodes to die in this case?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Rapsey <> wrote:
> >
> >> If a process dies with exit signal normal (like if the process function
> >> stops recursion) the linked processes will not die. If there is any
> other
> >> exit signal, linked processes will die as well. You can call exit(stop)
> or
> >> something when you want to kill all processes as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sergej
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:10 AM, John Erickson <>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hello, I have created a bunch of processes and called link() on them
> from
> >> a
> >> > root process.  I thought this would mean that when one of them died,
> they
> >> > would all die.  However, I see in my log file one of the processes is
> >> 'not
> >> > responding' but the others run along oblivious.  Is there a way to
> have
> >> > them
> >> > all die when this happens?
> >> >
> >>
> >
>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list