From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 24 00:59:05 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EB416A41F;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:59:05 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C2443D46;
	Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:59:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.5/8.13.5/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k0O0x23x028638; 
	Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:59:02 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:59:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <43D56E79.60504@elischer.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601231954150.17167-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: kernel thread as real threads..
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:59:05 -0000

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