Re: RFC: import of posix_spawn GSoC results

[yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi)]

hi,

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 02:34:22PM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> i haven't explored either.
> 
> Ok, I will give it a closer look (but that will take a few days).
> 
>> well, i confess that i don't understand why in-kernel implementation is
>> desirable in the first place.
> 
> I don't know what alternatives you consider better - IMHO the in kernel
> version is way smaller, minimal slightly more efficient, and a lot more
> elegant than any vfork based hack I could think of. Besides, I wouldn't
> know how to do all the dirty libpthread changes to make that thread
> safe.

vfork based implementation has its advantages.  eg. less kernel code

i'm not sure what kind of "dirty libpthread changes".
can you explain?

YAMAMOTO Takashi

> 
>> i don't like having the lwp argument because they generally don't work for
>> non-curlwp.  l_dupfd, "single threaded" optimization, ...
> 
> I see the first point (but it is ok in this usage, maybe needs a few warning
> comments here and there). I'm not confinced it falls into the same categories
> as the other points ;-)
> 
> Anyway, I will check if we can avoid it - this would make the overall
> change far less intrusive, which is always a plus.
> 
> Martin