lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Porting vfork()
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Horst von Brand wrote:

> Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > That said, now that multiple tasks can share an MMU context, it would
> > probably be quite easy to support vfork() semantics.
>
> All I've ever read on the subject says vfork(2) was an unclean
> implementation of fork(2) semantics (sort of) for efficiency sake. It makes
> no sense to work to replicate accidental, totally non-wanted and even in
> the original explicitly marked as not-to-be-relied-on semantics. Easy to do
> or not.

Just to add fuel to the flames ;-).

I'm not convinced that it's even necessary for compatibility. Solaris 2.6
and 2.7 man pages, for example, state that vfork will be removed in a future
version. So do FreeBSD 3.0 man pages.

later,
chris

--
Chris Ricker kaboom@gatech.edu
chris.ricker@m.cc.utah.edu


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.015 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site