From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 12 8:52:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9BD14C14 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:52:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rminnich@lanl.gov) Received: from mini.acl.lanl.gov (root@mini.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.34]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA1030982 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:52:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (rminnich@localhost) by mini.acl.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA06286 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:52:29 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: mini.acl.lanl.gov: rminnich owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:52:29 -0700 (MST) From: "Ronald G. Minnich" X-Sender: rminnich@mini.acl.lanl.gov To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork() [was: Concept check] In-Reply-To: <200001121433.JAA12686@unknown.nowhere.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Alexander Litvin wrote: > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :BTW, concerning rfork(RFMEM). Could somebody explain me, why the > > :following simple program is coredumping: > > You cannot call rfork() with RFMEM directly from a C program. You > > have to use assembly (has anyone created a native clone() call yet > > to do all the hard work?). OK, I'd like to propose another option to rfork to make it a little more usable for mortals. The option is RFSTACK. This will cause rfork to work like my original version, in that the stack segment (all memory from USERSTACK and up) will be cloned. This would really make a big improvement in rfork usability. Comments? ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message