[Devel] Re: [PATCH 11/11][v15]: Document sys_eclone
H. Peter Anvin
hpa at zytor.com
Sun Jul 4 21:10:42 PDT 2010
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.
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
More information about the Devel