[PATCH 11/11][v15]: Document sys_eclone

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 07/04/2010 04:39 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
>>
>> 1. can you implement it for i386 (register starved) using eclone?
> 
> That's a very good question. I'm going to punt on a direct answer for
> now. Instead,  I wonder if it's even worth enabling vfork through eclone.
> vfork is rarely used, is supported by the "old" clone syscall, and any
> old code adapted to use eclone for vfork would need significant
> changes because of vfork's specialness. (A consequence of the way vfork
> borrows page tables and must avoid clobbering parent's registers..)
> 

vfork is its own system call for a reason.  We used to do it with
sys_clone, and it turned out to be a mess.  Doing it in a separate
system call -- even though the internals are largely the same -- is cleaner.

	-hpa
-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.