* CLONE_SIGHAND w/o CLONE_VM
@ 2003-09-22 2:54 Albert Cahalan
2003-09-22 3:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Albert Cahalan @ 2003-09-22 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel mailing list
Does CLONE_SIGHAND without CLONE_VM ever
make sense?
Note that the arch-specific kernel_thread()
implementations add CLONE_VM, so kernel_thread()
usage doesn't count unless you can point to an
arch that doesn't add the CLONE_VM flag. (BTW, the
user-mode port is missing CLONE_UNTRACED. Bug?)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: CLONE_SIGHAND w/o CLONE_VM
2003-09-22 2:54 CLONE_SIGHAND w/o CLONE_VM Albert Cahalan
@ 2003-09-22 3:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-09-22 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Albert Cahalan; +Cc: linux-kernel mailing list
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:54:05PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Does CLONE_SIGHAND without CLONE_VM ever
> make sense?
>
> Note that the arch-specific kernel_thread()
> implementations add CLONE_VM, so kernel_thread()
> usage doesn't count unless you can point to an
> arch that doesn't add the CLONE_VM flag. (BTW, the
> user-mode port is missing CLONE_UNTRACED. Bug?)
Minor bug, but yes, it's a bug. kernel threads should always be
CLONE_UNTRACED; UML wasn't in the tree when I added it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-22 3:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-22 2:54 CLONE_SIGHAND w/o CLONE_VM Albert Cahalan
2003-09-22 3:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox