Re: CLONE_SIGHAND w/o CLONE_VM

From: Daniel Jacobowitz
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 22:43:35 EST


On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:54:05PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Does CLONE_SIGHAND without CLONE_VM ever
> make sense?
>
> Note that the arch-specific kernel_thread()
> implementations add CLONE_VM, so kernel_thread()
> usage doesn't count unless you can point to an
> arch that doesn't add the CLONE_VM flag. (BTW, the
> user-mode port is missing CLONE_UNTRACED. Bug?)

Minor bug, but yes, it's a bug. kernel threads should always be
CLONE_UNTRACED; UML wasn't in the tree when I added it.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/