From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0601071710v37714f35he1a439744cf5ef2d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat,  7 Jan 2006 20:10:24 -0500
From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: erik quanstrom <quanstro@speakeasy.net>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] p9p procrfork
In-Reply-To: <20060108010536.A53891439F9@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060108010536.A53891439F9@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d3e7541c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> what is the reason that p9p doesn't support procrfork?
> linux might be able to support procrfork via clone(2), but
> of course, pthreads might have something else to say about
> that.

you answered the question yourself.
we're not programming to linux.
we're programming to what we can do
portably across a range of unixes.
file descriptor and name space groups
(the only things you ever use procrfork for)
are not part of that.

if you need procrfork for rffdg before procexec, usually
you can get by with threadexec etc.

russ