Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:32:09 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@www.hotjobs.com> To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sfork()? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980819141940.19467B-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980819124919.12449D-100000@terra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
urm, how about a new syscal perhaps? takes an (void *) if null it means copy my stack otherwise it's a pointer to the stack you want the child process to have. this would be a good way to have userland threads pre-emptive instead of co-operative, no? although you won't have global signal handlers... but we could keep a global file descriptor table.. any other problems? big thank you to Luoqi Chen for the help. 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, 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980819141940.19467B-100000>