Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:05:22 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch] clone_startup(), 2.5.31-A0 |
| |
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 09:01:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > First the name souns horrible. What about spawn_thread or create_thread > > instead? it's not our good old clone and not a lookalike, it's some > > pthreadish monster.. > > This one definitely isn't a pthread-specific problem. The old UNIX fork() > semantics for <pid> returning really are fairly broken, since the notion > of returning the pid in a local register is inherently racy for _anything_ > that wants to maintain a list of its children and needs to access the list > in the SIGCHLD handler.
The TLS setting makes it pretty pthread-specific, though (or at least thread-specific). Also the fn parameter makes it very different from both clone and fork. What about spawn() if you dislike a thread in the name?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |