FreeBSD's rfork wrapper proposal #2121
Conversation
src/unistd.rs
Outdated
| feature! { | ||
| #![feature = "process"] | ||
| #[cfg(target_os = "freebsd")] | ||
| pub mod rfork_freebsd { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need to put it in a dedicated module, the existing 2 pub mod within unistd.rs are for better naming
rfork(2), IMHO, is good enough so we don't need this
src/unistd.rs
Outdated
| /// Flags for [`rfork`] | ||
| /// subset of flags supported by FreeBSD 12.x and onwards |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| /// Flags for [`rfork`] | |
| /// subset of flags supported by FreeBSD 12.x and onwards | |
| /// Flags for [`rfork`] | |
| /// | |
| /// subset of flags supported by FreeBSD 12.x and onwards |
We should add a newline here or the they will be rendered into a single paragraph
src/unistd.rs
Outdated
| /// subset of flags supported by FreeBSD 12.x and onwards | ||
| /// with a safe outcome, thus as `RFMEM` can possibly lead to undefined behavior, | ||
| /// it is not in the list. And `rfork_thread` is deprecated. | ||
| pub struct RforkFlags: libc::c_int { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like there is a RFSIGSHARE flag that is currently missing, though it is also not available in libc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noticed this PR rust-lang/libc#3457, thanks for doing it!
|
Please revert the format changes. Is it possible to add a test in |
devnexen
force-pushed
the
rfork_fbsd
branch
3 times, most recently
from
193749b
to
1355dd0
Compare
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| feature! { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we use a feature! block here, why not put them all in the block?
feature! {
#![feature = "process"]
#[cfg(target_os = "freebsd")]
libc_bitflags! {
}
#[cfg(target_os = "freebsd")]
pub unsafe fn rfork(flags: RforkFlags) -> Result<ForkResult> {
}
}
No description provided.