From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4BCB464A.702@web.de> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:50:02 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: uml: pthreads instead of manual clone()? Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB072389367F5E104741C48CB" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Dike Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigB072389367F5E104741C48CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jeff, is there (still) any reason to use explicit clone() instead of pthreads to spawn UML kernel threads? While playing with a patch to finally move os_nsecs to proper CLOCK_MONOTONIC, I noticed some subtle side-effect: We need to link against librt for clock_gettime, but that indirectly drags in libpthread. Now gdb gets unhappy when you try to debug the UML kernel. It assumes that pthreads are used, but fails to find their IDs and terminates the session. So the obvious approach appears to be converting kernel threads to pthreads - if there aren't any know pitfalls. Jan --------------enigB072389367F5E104741C48CB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkvLRk8ACgkQitSsb3rl5xRlWwCg0j9oWDNFXcvSva4SFWx1Uo+o znwAn0il7aX4P3Z/to2BT7JAKCuE8TYb =01UP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB072389367F5E104741C48CB--