Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:20:36 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: token@wicx50.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Cc: borjam@we.lc.ehu.es, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux clone() system call Message-ID: <199706042120.RAA00290@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <9706041703.AA09686@wicx01.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> (message from Matthias Buelow on Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:03:52 %2B0100 (MET DST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Matthias Buelow <token@wicx50.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:03:52 +0100 (MET DST) clone(2) is a Linux-unique system call (they formed it after a Plan9 syscall afaik) and not portable. It looks more or less like a kludgy hack interface to fork/vfork especially when you consider the following :-) : That man page is seriously out of date. It is how user and kernel based threads are created, any piece of the thread context can be specifically chosen to be shared fully or not shared at all, the fact that fork() is implemented in terms of clone() shows how it pretty much is a clean design. The CLONE_ACTUALLY_WORKS_OK was relevant over 2 years ago to give you an idea of how out of date that man page is. ---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706042120.RAA00290>