Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:31:30 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: kernel thread support - LWP's |
| |
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 04:21:29PM +0200, Jeff Dike wrote: > ak@muc.de said: > > Why can't you do that by clone()ing to a trampoline that sends SIGSTOP > > to itself ? > > In the user-mode kernel, I need to be able to have a process fork and have the > child stopped. I do get to rewrite the system call, but I don't get to chose > the code that gets cloned to. > > Right now, I write a halt instruction right after the system call, and use the > resulting seg fault to stop the child. A CLONED_STOPPED flag would be far > more pleasant.
Why is this more pleasant? It can be done without problems in user space.
What you're beginning is a very old flame war: the fork+exec vs CreateProcess(10+ options) argument [Unix .vs. NT/VMS/AmigaOS]. The Unix way has been proved to be far more flexible than the NT NewCreateProcessIV_with_extension_XX() path. Don't try to turn clone into CreateProcess please.
-Andi
-- This is like TV. I don't like TV.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |