Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote:
Balance on clone make some sort of sense, since you know they're not
going to exec afterwards. We've thrashed through this many times before
and decided that unless there was an explicit hint from userspace,
balance on fork was not a good thing to do in the general case. Not only
based on a large range of testing, but also previous experience from other
Unix's. What new data came forth to change this?
I agree with you. I will let Nick(the author) have a take at this.
Sorry I've taken a while with this. Darren, I'll reply to you soon.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |