Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 20:03:57 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() |
| |
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 kernel@draper.net wrote: > > > So, the question: is linux vfork() behavior annoying anyone else and is it > > worth fixing? (other than to eliminate its appearance in the BUG area of the > > Linux fork() man page ;) > > Given that vfork() isn't implemented yet, I'd say that noone feels > particularly interested in it. With clone already in place, it could be > implemented fairly easily, but that doesn't mean that it should: the > manpage for vfork() on a Solaris box I have access to claims that the > function will be removed in a future release. Also, vfork() has very > wierd semantics (something about returning EOF on reading from ttys?) that > would be a chore to implement. Linux would probably be better served > implementing a spawn() type creature, as that's the problem vfork() meant > to solve. > > -ben > I agree absolutely. I'm not for increasing the kernel size to help port bad code. If fork() won't work, a few lines will fix the code being ported and everybody is happy.
Cheers, Dick Johnson ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** Penguin : Linux version 2.1.131 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology. Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |