Re: Patch: CLONE_PPID (was kernel thread support - LWP's)

Tim Hockin (thockin@isunix.it.ilstu.edu)
Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:19:04 -0500 (CDT)


> It's better then to do not what program asked. But what about combining
> efforts ?
>
> Now we have:
>
> CLONE_PPID/CLONE_PPIDOK/PF_PPIDOK by Tim Hockin <thockin@isunix.it.ilstu.edu>
>
> CLONE_SUSPENDED by Ulrich Drepper <drepper@cygnus.com>
>
> newpgid/getpgids/joinpgid/leavepgid/sigsemantics by
> Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> and Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu>
> (not yet done) ...
>
> CLONE_SUSPEND is usable even without threads (usually Linux's behaviour
> where child is activated after fork and parent is suspended is better then
> BSD behaviour but sometimes it's not true and why not add such ability if
> it's just 6 lines of code in kernel).

I agree. I have actually been hoping to get all these together. I think
they should comprise a big clone overhaul patch. Anyone want to volunteer
to maintain the conglomerate until its done? I'll do it if no one has any
preference. I've already got my stuff and Ulrich's stuff. And I am
playing with a few new ideas, too.

> Looks like all three things must be added to kernel for proper support of
> POSIX threads. And LinuxThreads must be patched and TESTED. And only then
> ONE letter to Linus must be created. If Linus will get 3-5-10 unrelated
> conflicting patches for better threads support he'll just reject them all...
> But if it'll be only one patch with clear explanation and approval of Larry,
> Drepper (and may be Alan Cox as well) then this patch can be accepted...
> Why are you so interested in scattering efforts ??

I'm not trying to scatter efforts. My stuff just got coded yesterday :) I
agree completely with what you say about 1 patch. As for Pthreads, Ulrich
- you have some say in the glibc maintaining, correct?

Tim

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/