Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:59:02 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kernel thread as real threads.. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601231954150.17167-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <43D56E79.60504@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Julian Elischer wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > > well, the operation woudll continue for the parent only I woudl assume. > > > (although davidxu is changing that) > > I'm not convinced that that multiple threads should be allowed to > proceed during a fork > but I can see that not allowing it is more a "foot shooting avoidance" > than a requirement. > it could be allowed that if you do a fork and allow multipel threads to > runat the same time > and end up with an inconsistant address space in the child, then you get > what you deserve. > :-) POSIX specifies that only 1 thread (the forking thread) is present after a fork. If you want all (or some subset) of the parent's threads to exist after a fork(), you must call it something else (use a flag to rfork?) and ensure it is not the default behavior. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0601231954150.17167-100000>