On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > :Hence the NEW flag RFSTACK. Why would this be a bad thing? This would keep
> > :the old behavior and allow much nicer new behavior. I didn't suggest
> > :changing the old behavior. This would just greatly simplify things so all
> > of
> >
> > I think Richard Seaman has it right: the stack needs to be passed.
> >
> > Why don't we simply implement the linux clone()? It sounds to me that
> > it would be trivial.
>
> Doing clone() in libc that calls rfork(2) and doing all the stack setup
> should be pretty easy.. (Richard has done it already, yes?) On the other
> hand, the linux emulator needs it so there's a counter-argument for making
> it a proper syscall outright. Leaving the rfork(2) stuff unmolested and at
> least resembling it's plan9 origins probably has some merit - adding extra
> arguments would mess that up.
If we do varargs, then nothing could notice the difference. It's still
backward-compatible, but it would be more powerful. How could that break
something? Remember that the traditional int open(const char *, int, int)
was changed to int open(const char *, int, ...) without any incompatibilities.
>
> Cheers,
> -Peter
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
