On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 07:08, Michael McMahon <michael.mcma...@sun.com>wrote:
> That's fine Martin. We can do it that way. > > Do you really need to #include <sys/syscall.h>? > As far as I can see clone() only requires <sched.h> > You're right. I removed #include of syscall.h. I think I picked it up from some man page somewhere. > > When you allocate the clone stack for the child > the memory is byte aligned. Is this ok for Linux or should stacks > be aligned on larger boundaries? > Good question. The man page is silent on the matter. I ensure that the stack pointer is as aligned as the return from malloc(), which is supposed to be suitable for any C object. I suspect that if there are more stringent requirements, then the kernel itself will adjust the alignment. Let's keep the current code unless we know of a reason not to. > > Also, I don't follow why we need the execve_as_traditional_shell_script() > function. Can you explain the reason for that? > I think my comment for that function explains it fairly well. /** * Exec FILE as a traditional Bourne shell script (i.e. one without #!). * If we could do it over again, we would probably not support such an ancient * misfeature, but compatibility wins over sanity. The original support for * this was imported accidentally from execvp(). */ The tests I added also pass on the older implementation, so execve_as_traditional_shell_script() prevents a regression. We always supported "traditional shell scripts" - we just didn't know it. --- I updated the public version of the patch at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/clone-exec Martin > > Thanks, > Michael. > > Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> I think the best way to handle the coordination is in two steps. >> I'd like to get my Linux-clone changes in first (you should review, >> I will commit) >> and then we switch hats and I will review your Solaris changes. >> It seems best to do this in two steps: to better place blame when >> it breaks (this is very tricky stuff to get right). >> If you agree, please review my posted changes. >> >> Aside: Instead of griping about the missing execvpe, >> I filed a bug against glibc, and was surprised to find >> that Ulrich Drepper had implemented it a couple of days later. >> It will probably be in glibc-2.11. Perhaps in 5 years we can >> use it ourselves...). Thanks, Uli! >> >> Martin >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 07:29, Michael McMahon >> <michael.mcma...@sun.com<mailto: >> michael.mcma...@sun.com>> wrote: >> >> Martin, >> >> I had done something similar with clone & exec for Linux, but >> hadn't got round to testing it. >> So, it seems reasonable to take yours. Do you want to send me your >> updated versions of >> process_md.c and the test? I can take care of the merge with the >> Solaris code. >> >> >> >
