On 07/04/2010 04:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote: >> >> 1. can you implement it for i386 (register starved) using eclone? > > That's a very good question. I'm going to punt on a direct answer for > now. Instead, I wonder if it's even worth enabling vfork through eclone. > vfork is rarely used, is supported by the "old" clone syscall, and any > old code adapted to use eclone for vfork would need significant > changes because of vfork's specialness. (A consequence of the way vfork > borrows page tables and must avoid clobbering parent's registers..) > vfork is its own system call for a reason. We used to do it with sys_clone, and it turned out to be a mess. Doing it in a separate system call -- even though the internals are largely the same -- is cleaner. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
