Re: Using getpid() often, another way? [was Re: clone() <-> getpid()bug in 2.6?]

[Russell Leighton]

David Mosberger wrote:

> > > > > > On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:00:09 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/