Re: [RFA] Linux Checkpoints, take 3

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Anybody object if I consider this approved, once the issues below
are taken care of?


Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Anyway, a few problems that I spotted:
> 
> 1. Please drop the "extern" from _initialize_linux_fork() (and the
>    associated  comment).  You'll need an explicit prototype again, like:
> 
>    /* Prevent warning from -Wmissing-prototypes.  */
>    void _initialize_linux_fork (void);
> 
> 2. Please update the copyright notice to use (C) and the new FSF
>    address.
> 
> 3. Replace the FORKS_EXISTS() macro with a forks_exists_p() function?
>    Or inline it if you don't think it's ever going to be changed.
> 
> 4. Aren't the values used for SEEK_SET/SEEK_CUR the same on all Linux
>    ports?  In that case perhaps #defining LINUX_SEEK_SET 0, and using
>    LINUX_SEEK_SET would be a good solution.
> 
> 5. Could you seperate out the "Detaching after fork from child
>    process" printing?
> 
> And from the nitpicking department:
> 
> 1. The comments on the #includes are a bit silly.  I'd rather not see
>    any unless there's something really unobvious going on.  They get
>    out of data pretty soon anyway.
> 
> 2. Please don't put the function name in comments above the function.
>    (call_lseek, linux_fork_killall, linux_fork_mourn_inferior, 
> 
> 3. Really sorry to hear that you're suffering from a split personality
>    problem:
> 
> 
>>2005-12-19  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>
>>
>>2005-12-19  Michael Van Meter Snyder  <michsnyd@clwang-lnx.cisco.com>
>>
> 
> Otherwise, I think it's ok.  It's a bit sad that this is a Linux-only
> implementation, but then it's mostly Linux-specific code.  I'll see if
> I can rig up something for OpenBSD, and then we can sort out what bits
> are target-independent.
> 
> Mark
>