From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug 19 09:58:02 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA14649
          for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA14613
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from rminnich@Sarnoff.COM)
Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12839; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:57:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM>
X-Sender: rminnich@terra
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sfork()?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980819121409.19467A-100000@bright.fx.genx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980819124919.12449D-100000@terra>
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, 19 Aug 1998, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> yes, evil evil evil man pages. :)
> and, actually John Dyson told me about rfork, i thought it was "fixed"
> though.

OK, now I am lost. I just looked at -current kernel source and see that
freebsd rfork does not split the stack. What's funny is my old ca. 1994
rfork for freebsd does split the stack. In fact I now wonder if my design
was not somewhat nicer, since it does split the stack and requires no
user-land assembly code. I'm still running 16 nodes with that old OS and
old rfork and I'm going to not have fun upgrading them with -current 
rfork ...

now what? 

ron

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