[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)
Russell King wrote:
> 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().
Sorry, but none of those system calls requires the registers which is
where the problem is.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.092 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site