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
