lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.094 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site