[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RFC: import of posix_spawn GSoC results
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:34:22PM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> i haven't explored either.
> Ok, I will give it a closer look (but that will take a few days).
>> well, i confess that i don't understand why in-kernel implementation is
>> desirable in the first place.
> I don't know what alternatives you consider better - IMHO the in kernel
> version is way smaller, minimal slightly more efficient, and a lot more
> elegant than any vfork based hack I could think of. Besides, I wouldn't
> know how to do all the dirty libpthread changes to make that thread
vfork based implementation has its advantages. eg. less kernel code
i'm not sure what kind of "dirty libpthread changes".
can you explain?
>> i don't like having the lwp argument because they generally don't work for
>> non-curlwp. l_dupfd, "single threaded" optimization, ...
> I see the first point (but it is ok in this usage, maybe needs a few warning
> comments here and there). I'm not confinced it falls into the same categories
> as the other points ;-)
> Anyway, I will check if we can avoid it - this would make the overall
> change far less intrusive, which is always a plus.
Main Index |
Thread Index |