Re: RFC: import of posix_spawn GSoC results

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:16:35PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> It overwrites the strong syscall symbols, so it covers libc itself as
> well.

Rump will probably want to override posix_spawn completely to pass information
around (similar to the pre/post exec stuff it does). Worst case it need
its own implementation of the vfork child code.

But what do you mean vs. mutexes? The vfork child is still in the same process,
so our mutexes should just work - and as soon as it is not (i.e. the exec
happens), it does not matter any more.

Overall, IMHO, neither version is a clear winner over the other. The standard
is vague on purpose to allow for both implementations (and even more).
We just need to pick our poison.

Martin