Mitchell Blank Jr <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> It would make the most sense for it to just surplant the thread that
> called it, I think. I don't see what the value of having all the
> other theads asyncronously disappear is.
Threads aren't processes, they share VM. To exec ls(1) sharing VM with a
bunch of threads?! What if the process launched is itself multithreaded,
what relationship will there be among the child's threads and the parent's?
IMVHO, your suggestion makes sense for fork(2) from a thread, while exec(2)
there doesn't make much sense at all.
-- Horst von Brand email@example.com Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST