Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:22:49 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <3421B7C9.3F54BC7E@whistle.com> References: <199709182235.RAA09701@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John S. Dyson wrote: > > I am going to be changing our rfork implementation in the following ways: > > Rename RFMEM to RFSHMEM, implying that we are fully sharing memory. > Also implying that we don't support RFMEM in the same way as other > OSes might. Add an additional argument to rfork(2) to support > specifying a new stack address in the child. This argument is > meaningful only if RFSHMEM is specified. This mod will eliminate > some potential timing windows when the child is running with the > parents stack. It will also eliminate the need for certain > "gymnastics" in code that uses rfork with RFSHMEM. > > I'll be committing the changes tonight, so let me know if anyone > has problems with the concept. well, it makes it incompatible with the rfork in plan 9 What does Linux's clone() call have as arguments..? > > -- > John > dyson@freebsd.org > jdyson@nc.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3421B7C9.3F54BC7E>