No, it does not block, failing if it can't.
This piece is still buggy - the error labeling (waserror(), poperror(),
error()) is out of balance, even in the path that doesn't fork.
So I'm tracing carefully to understand where the missing poperror() or
extra waserror() is.
Paul
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 1:41 PM Stuart Morrow <morrow.stu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 15:12, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Further, he fixed the rfork support, such that processes can set up and
> move from a TC to an AC. This restores a long-lost capability.
> >
> > This is a pretty major step forward. It is now even possible to do
> things like this:
> > main(){
> > /* set it all up */
> > rfork(RFACORE); /* something like that */
> >
> > and your process is now running on a dedicated, non-preempted,
> interrupt-free, no kernel code, core all to its own.
>
> Does that block until the resource is available? 9front added the
> ability for rfork to fail.
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T25c85a39f00802e6-M578da3e508ed84bd7aa48d11
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
