From owner-freebsd-emulation Mon Sep 18 14:31: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mail.inka.de (quechua.inka.de [212.227.14.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF5637B423 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ganerc.mips.inka.de (uucp@) by mail.inka.de with local-bsmtp id 13b8VA-0000z4-01; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:31:00 +0200 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ganerc.mips.inka.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8IKq6F54672 for freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:52:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from daemon) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Linux getpgid() Date: 18 Sep 2000 22:52:06 +0200 Message-ID: <8q5v9m$1lc2$1@ganerc.mips.inka.de> To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Noticed on 4.1-STABLE/i386: Under the Linuxulator, getpgid(0) fails with ESRCH. This is easy enough to fix in sys/{i386,compat}/linux/linux_misc.c:linux_getpgid(). However, it raises the question why getpgid() was wrapped for the Linux compatibility layer in the first place. As far as I can tell, getpgid() has exactly the semantics on FreeBSD and Linux--and POSIX for that matter. In fact, the only difference between linux_getpgid() and the native getpgid() that I can see is that the former doesn't handle getpgid(0). Any reasons why we shouldn't just go with 132 NOPROTO LINUX { int getpgid(int pid); } ? -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message