lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 12:56:31PM -0700, george anzinger wrote:
> Uh..? I though that was what I was allowing. It seems to me to be a
> lot of extra work to put the same code in 15 different archs.
> Especially if one does not really know each of them, nor can any one
> group (or individual) be expected to be able to test (or even have the
> hardware to test) each of them.

Umm, my best advice is to look at sys_fork() and do_fork(), sys_execve()
and do_execve().

--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.053 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site