Review request for 5049299
Michael.McMahon at Sun.COM
Mon Jun 8 14:08:37 UTC 2009
That's fine Martin. We can do it that way.
Do you really need to #include <sys/syscall.h>?
As far as I can see clone() only requires <sched.h>
When you allocate the clone stack for the child
the memory is byte aligned. Is this ok for Linux or should stacks
be aligned on larger boundaries?
Also, I don't follow why we need the execve_as_traditional_shell_script()
function. Can you explain the reason for that?
Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I think the best way to handle the coordination is in two steps.
> I'd like to get my Linux-clone changes in first (you should review,
> I will commit)
> and then we switch hats and I will review your Solaris changes.
> It seems best to do this in two steps: to better place blame when
> it breaks (this is very tricky stuff to get right).
> If you agree, please review my posted changes.
> Aside: Instead of griping about the missing execvpe,
> I filed a bug against glibc, and was surprised to find
> that Ulrich Drepper had implemented it a couple of days later.
> It will probably be in glibc-2.11. Perhaps in 5 years we can
> use it ourselves...). Thanks, Uli!
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 07:29, Michael McMahon <Michael.McMahon at sun.com
> <mailto:Michael.McMahon at sun.com>> wrote:
> I had done something similar with clone & exec for Linux, but
> hadn't got round to testing it.
> So, it seems reasonable to take yours. Do you want to send me your
> updated versions of
> process_md.c and the test? I can take care of the merge with the
> Solaris code.
More information about the core-libs-dev