Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:59:24 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <199709182359.SAA00339@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <3421B7C9.3F54BC7E@whistle.com> from Julian Elischer at "Sep 18, 97 04:22:49 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer said: > 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 > It is incompatible anyway, that is the reason that I am changing RFMEM to RFSHMEM. If we create a compatible RFMEM, then we can be compatible. > > What does Linux's clone() call have as arguments..? > I don't think that it makes any difference. I am trying to solve a specific problem with RF(SH)MEM that can be fixed a simple way (my proposal), or a significantly more complex way, messing with signal masks, etc. John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709182359.SAA00339>