Messages in this thread | | | From | David Mosberger <> | Date | Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:32:50 -0700 | Subject | Re: [patch] clone_startup(), 2.5.31-A0 |
| |
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:11:38 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> said:
Chris> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:09:24AM -0600, Erik Andersen Chris> wrote: >> > First the name souns horrible. What about spawn_thread or >> create_thread > instead? it's not our good old clone and not a >> lookalike, it's some > pthreadish monster.. >> >> How about "clone2"?
Chris> Already used by ia64 for a hybrid between the good old clone Chris> and the new monster :)
The original clone() system call was misdesigned. Even if you chose to ignore ia64, clone() cannot be used by portable applications to specify a stack (think "stack-growth direction").
clone() should have specified a stack memory *area* from the beginning. (UNIX got this right from the beginning, see, e.g., sigaltstack()).
--david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |