Review request for 5049299 (original) (raw)

Michael McMahon Michael.McMahon at Sun.COM
Mon Jun 8 14:08:37 UTC 2009

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>

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?

Also, I don't follow why we need the execve_as_traditional_shell_script() function. Can you explain the reason for that?

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.McMahon at sun.com_ _<mailto:Michael.McMahon at 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 processmd.c and the test? I can take care of the merge with the Solaris code.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list