From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel
Message-ID: <20040228110851.GB16357@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20040228105025.1a94f714.martin@parvat.com> <000d01c3fddf$72cc45b0$2bdcfea9@blue>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000d01c3fddf$72cc45b0$2bdcfea9@blue>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:08:51 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01c25ade-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 09:44:24AM -0000, Nigel Roles wrote:

> The performance argument may well still be regarded by Linus as
> stronger, but there are other differences. One is that the stack
> used by the clone, being allocated on the heap, is fixed in size,
> and unprotected from overflow.

clone() uses whatever you pass to it; man 2 mmap for further inspiration...