[lkml]   [1996]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: getting Linux into business..
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Rob McKee wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Bryn Paul Arnold Jones wrote:
> > You don't seem to understand, fork() _IS_ clone(0), not equilivent to, not
> > like, but IS. I don't see any point in doing fork() based threads now,
> > and clone based later, just get the clone stuff done. We could (should
> > IMHO) remove fork(2), and implement fork(3).
> alright.. howabout getting a clone(0,COPYVM|SIGCLD) threads lib going
> first and then finish up a clone(astackptr,SIGCLD) threads lib down the
> road..

Erm, I think you mean clone(CLONE_VM|CLONE_SIGHAND), and the second one
seems like a step back to me .... The flags are in <linux/sched.h> ;),
shouldn't these be moved out, or at least the kernel specfic bits moved
inside "#ifdef __kernel__"'s (anyone) ?

There is a clone based threads package avalable, which proberbly need
some debuging. Ie get, test, report bugs, ..., test, perfect -> hay presto,
one clone based threads lib ...

PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence
again :( and I don't care ;) | initiated.
/ This space is intentionally left
| blank, apart from this text ;-)

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.025 / U:1.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site