From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11][v15]: Document sys_eclone Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:10:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4C315B42.1020201@zytor.com> References: <1278189164-28408-1-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1278189164-28408-12-git-send-email-sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100704233951.GK3338@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100704233951.GK3338-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Helsley Cc: Randy Dunlap , Serge Hallyn , Arnd Bergmann , Albert Cahalan , Containers , Nathan Lynch , Dan Smith , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Roland McGrath List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 07/04/2010 04:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote: >> >> 1. can you implement it for i386 (register starved) using eclone? > > That's a very good question. I'm going to punt on a direct answer for > now. Instead, I wonder if it's even worth enabling vfork through eclone. > vfork is rarely used, is supported by the "old" clone syscall, and any > old code adapted to use eclone for vfork would need significant > changes because of vfork's specialness. (A consequence of the way vfork > borrows page tables and must avoid clobbering parent's registers..) > vfork is its own system call for a reason. We used to do it with sys_clone, and it turned out to be a mess. Doing it in a separate system call -- even though the internals are largely the same -- is cleaner. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.