Re: [PATCH v21 011/100] eclone (11/11): Document sys_eclone

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed Jun 09 2010 - 14:46:55 EST

On 06/09/2010 11:14 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> |
> | Even for x86, it's an easier API. Callers would be specifying
> | two numbers they already have: the argument and return value
> | for malloc. Currently the numbers must be added together,
> | destroying information, except on hppa (must not add size)
> | and ia64 (must use what I'm proposing already).
> I agree its easier and would avoid #ifdefs in the applications.
> Peter, Arnd, Roland - do you have any concerns with requiring all
> architectures to specify the stack to eclone() as [base, offset]

Makes sense to me. There might be advantages to be able to track the
size of the "stack allocation" even for other architectures, too.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at