From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KgseP-0005bK-DB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:56:49 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KgseN-0005b8-CA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:56:47 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54228 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KgseN-0005b5-7T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:56:47 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.246]:65500)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <balrogg@gmail.com>) id 1KgseN-0006mp-9C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:56:47 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so624579rvb.22
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fb249edb0809191956i7c4132fdo1338d04a6d9bc35d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:56:45 +0200
From: "andrzej zaborowski" <balrogg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix vfork() syscall emulation
In-Reply-To: <1221750426-14863-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1221750426-14863-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>

2008/9/18 Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>:
> vfork() is a kind of fork, not thread despite CLONE_VM

According to clone(2) it can be either, the only difference is that
vfork() suspends the parent process.  So if CLONE_VM is set, I think
still the pthread / clone way should be used and the child thread
should be waited on.

On the other hand the patch makes fork() and vfork() be treated identically?

Cheers