Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:37:57 +0000 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sfork()? Message-ID: <199808191637.QAA03513@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:57:22 -0400." <Pine.SUN.3.91.980819124919.12449D-100000@terra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? Talk to John Dyson and perhaps check the archives to see why our rfork() behaves like this. If it turns out that our rfork() is wrong, or bad, or nonstandard, then please submit some diffs to fix it. Unless there are compelling (eg. thread-related) reasons, I don't see why we shouldn't try to make it useful to its ultimate consumers. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?199808191637.QAA03513>