From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 21 19:35:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2536114F68; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:35:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (8.9.2/8.9.2/Netplex) with ESMTP id LAA52679; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:34:26 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <199903220334.LAA52679@spinner.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Brian Feldman , Alfred Perlstein , "John S. Dyson" , samit@usa.ltindia.com, commiters@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork() In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:21:55 PST." <199903211721.JAA13495@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:34:25 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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