Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:02:34 -0400 | From | Russell Leighton <> | Subject | Re: Using getpid() often, another way? [was Re: clone() <-> getpid() bug in 2.6?] |
| |
David Mosberger wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:00:09 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> said: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > Christoph> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:48:31PM +0100, Sean Neakums > Christoph> wrote: > >> > for example ia64 doesn't have it. > > >> Then what is the sys_clone2 implementation in > >> arch/is64/kernel/entry.S for? > > Christoph> It's clone with a slightly different calling convention. > >Note that the only difference is that the stack-area is expressed as a >range (starting-address + size), rather than a direct stack-pointer >value. IMHO, it was a mistake to not do it that way right from the >beginning (consider that different arches grow stacks in different >directions, for example). > > > So Ia64 does have it..that's good. Does glibc wrap it?
I agree with the above...could glibc's clone() should have a size added? Then the arch specific stack issues could be hidden.
BTW, does gcc have a built-in #define like __STACK_GROWSUP__ that would allow one to deal with the missing size parameter when you called clone() by adjusting what you passed with and #ifdef?. - 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/
| |