From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 19 11:31:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA29916 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:31:57 -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 LAA29909 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:31:51 -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 OAA20227; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:32:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) X-Authentication-Warning: bright.fx.genx.net: bright owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:32:09 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: bright@bright.fx.genx.net Reply-To: Alfred Perlstein To: "Ron G. Minnich" cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sfork()? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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