From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug 19 09:25:05 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09041
          for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from bright.fx.genx.net (bright.fx.genx.net [206.64.4.154])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09029
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from bright@www.hotjobs.com)
Received: from localhost (bright@localhost)
	by bright.fx.genx.net (8.9.1/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA19769;
	Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:25:23 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: bright.fx.genx.net: bright owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:25:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@www.hotjobs.com>
X-Sender: bright@bright.fx.genx.net
To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@sarnoff.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sfork()?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980819115941.12330A-100000@terra>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980819121409.19467A-100000@bright.fx.genx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


yes, evil evil evil man pages. :)

and, actually John Dyson told me about rfork, i thought it was "fixed"
though.

the argument that rfork shouldn't copy the stack is bogus, as fork does 
it, and copying the stack in userland sounds silly. (wrapping a call to
rfork)

what are the implications of doing certain things after the cludged split?
what i mean will exit() and other stuff be munged?

the wrapper John gave me is interesting (still trying to get it to work,
as i'm confused about the arguments) but i _think_ you can't return from
your "thread" because the stack just isn't there.

are people still working on kernel threads instead of userland threads?

Alfred Perlstein - Programmer, HotJobs Inc. - www.hotjobs.com
-- There are operating systems, and then there's BSD.
-- http://www.freebsd.org/

On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Ron G. Minnich wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > You apparently also need some assembly code to handle management
> > of the stack; from my understanding, both processes will share
> > the same stack on return from rfork(), and stomp on each other.
> 
> from the man page: 
> 
> RFMEM   ... The stack segment is always split.  May be set only with
>            RFPROC. 
> 
> so the stack is not shared from my reading. My rfork() for 2.0.x split 
> the stack to.
> 
> ron
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message