Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:24:55 +0100 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 112893 for review Message-ID: <20070116222455.GA11360@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070116221444.GA10264@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <200701141353.l0EDr4Bn085459@repoman.freebsd.org> <200701161552.36888.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070116221444.GA10264@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:14:44PM +0100, Divacky Roman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:52:36PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Sunday 14 January 2007 08:53, Roman Divacky wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=112893 > > > > > > Change 112893 by rdivacky@rdivacky_witten on 2007/01/14 13:52:42 > > > > > > Make linux_vfork() actually work. This enables make to work again > > > with 2.6 > > > > You should be using RFSTOPPED and starting the new process up after you set > > P_PPWAIT before you block to avoid races. > > fork1() for vfork does exactly this... I just copied its behaviour. It also > seems to me to be more correct but fork1() does it this way. > > can you look at it? I wrong understood what you said.. ignore the previous mail. why is it better to set the flag while the p2 process sleeps? the sleeping affects p1 (parent) process which will sleep anyway - I dont see any race or something. can you explain please?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070116222455.GA11360>