Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:34:25 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>, "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>, samit@usa.ltindia.com, commiters@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork() Message-ID: <199903220334.LAA52679@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:21:55 PST." <199903211721.JAA13495@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Hence the NEW flag RFSTACK. Why would this be a bad thing? This would keep > :the old behavior and allow much nicer new behavior. I didn't suggest > :changing the old behavior. This would just greatly simplify things so all of > > I think Richard Seaman has it right: the stack needs to be passed. > > Why don't we simply implement the linux clone()? It sounds to me that > it would be trivial. Doing clone() in libc that calls rfork(2) and doing all the stack setup should be pretty easy.. (Richard has done it already, yes?) On the other hand, the linux emulator needs it so there's a counter-argument for making it a proper syscall outright. Leaving the rfork(2) stuff unmolested and at least resembling it's plan9 origins probably has some merit - adding extra arguments would mess that up. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903220334.LAA52679>