Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:05:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Petr Salinger <Petr.Salinger@seznam.cz> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork() Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111944550.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> In-Reply-To: <20110711172408.GX43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20110711123332.GS43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111455230.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711133342.GT43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111556000.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711142232.GU43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111641340.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711150614.GV43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111718440.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711154102.GW43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111805350.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711172408.GX43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Should the bit slice be 7 or 8 bits ? > I propose to go 8 bits, and add the check to be future-proof. > It seems that we already parse GNU/kFreeBSD brandnote. I think this > could be used to distinguish between old behaviour, that is currently > used by your libc, and proposed new interface, if __FreeBSD_version > is bumped and honored by glibc. You might need to store the brandinfo > somewhere in struct proc or use the separate struct sysentvec. No, the version in brandnote is compile-time minimal supported version, we will detect at runtime (by "sysctl kern.osreldate") which interface we should use. So far defined rfork() options: /* * XXX currently, some operations without RFPROC set are not supported. */ #define RFNAMEG (1<<0) /* UNIMPL new plan9 `name space' */ #define RFENVG (1<<1) /* UNIMPL copy plan9 `env space' */ #define RFFDG (1<<2) /* copy fd table */ #define RFNOTEG (1<<3) /* UNIMPL create new plan9 `note group' */ #define RFPROC (1<<4) /* change child (else changes curproc) */ #define RFMEM (1<<5) /* share `address space' */ #define RFNOWAIT (1<<6) /* give child to init */ #define RFCNAMEG (1<<10) /* UNIMPL zero plan9 `name space' */ #define RFCENVG (1<<11) /* UNIMPL zero plan9 `env space' */ #define RFCFDG (1<<12) /* close all fds, zero fd table */ #define RFTHREAD (1<<13) /* enable kernel thread support */ #define RFSIGSHARE (1<<14) /* share signal handlers */ #define RFLINUXTHPN (1<<16) /* do linux clone exit parent notification */ #define RFSTOPPED (1<<17) /* leave child in a stopped state */ #define RFHIGHPID (1<<18) /* use a pid higher than 10 (idleproc) */ #define RFPPWAIT (1<<31) /* parent sleeps until child exits (vfork) */ #define RFKERNELONLY (RFSTOPPED | RFHIGHPID | RFPPWAIT) The new interface will add: #define RFTSIGZMB (1<<19) #define RFTSIGSHIFT 20 /* reserve bits 20-27 */ #define RFTSIGMASK 0xFF #define RFTSIGNUM(flags) (((flags) >> RFTSIGSHIFT) & RFTSIGMASK) #define RFTSIGFLAGS(signum) ((signum) << RFTSIGSHIFT) Seems this interface be acceptable ? Petr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111944550.7134>