Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:36:47 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() |
| |
On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 03:46:11PM -0600, kernel@draper.net wrote: > In the commercial world we often must port software to any *nix that > a customer chooses to run. I suppose this means that Linux has arrived :)
Gee, I wish the companies whose software I use were so willing to port for me :-)
> When it does happen the programmer usually inserts another #ifdef LINUX > into code that otherwise would require no modification, folds his arms > across his chest, and chants "I really do love Linux" 3 times.
What is this crappy application code then ;-) I have never seen any code that *relies* on vfork() being different to fork().
> 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 ;)
I can't say I've noticed much call for "fixing" this. Look at all the software which runs just fine on Linux out of the box. Maybe this is another of those data points that says free software is more portable ;-)
That said, now that multiple tasks can share an MMU context, it would probably be quite easy to support vfork() semantics.
-- Jamie
- 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/
| |