From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Mar 22  4:29:19 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from zone.syracuse.net (zone.syracuse.net [209.2.141.6])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5DF66151C0; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:29:18 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from green@unixhelp.org)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost)
	by zone.syracuse.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA10180;
	Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:27:52 GMT
	(envelope-from green@unixhelp.org)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:27:52 +0000 (GMT)
From: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org>
X-Sender: green@zone.syracuse.net
To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	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() 
In-Reply-To: <199903220334.LAA52679@spinner.netplex.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903221226010.10137-100000@zone.syracuse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:

> 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.

If we do varargs, then nothing could notice the difference. It's still
backward-compatible, but it would be more powerful. How could that break
something? Remember that the traditional int open(const char *, int, int)
was changed to int open(const char *, int, ...) without any incompatibilities.

> 
> Cheers,
> -Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> 

 Brian Feldman					  _ __  ___ ___ ___  
 green@unixhelp.org			      _ __ ___ | _ ) __|   \ 
	     http://www.freebsd.org/	 _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
 FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!	   _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/ 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message