From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 16 22:55:16 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4731937BB55 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e6H5tA513746; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:55:10 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Nigel Roles Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork(RFMEM) behaviour Message-ID: <20000716225510.L25571@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from ngr@9fs.org on Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 06:10:01AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Nigel Roles [000716 22:11] wrote: > I am getting strange behaviour with rfork(RFMEM) on a ~2 week old > kernel. The following code illustrates it. For all the world, the > stack appears to be shareable after the fork. This is clearly wrong, > since pid was at some point different in parent and child for them > to take the right case. Dig a bit harder on the mailing lists, I bumped into this a couple of years back and was given example code to get around it. Another alternative is the linuxthreads port available in the ports collection. > I'm sure this is down to my stupidity. I'd be grateful for any > feedback. > > Also, I understand that rfork(RFMEM) was not supported in 3.3 under > SMP. My reading of the kernel source suggests that there is no longer > such a limitation. At which version did this change? I'm not sure, but the limitation wasn't in 4.0. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message