Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:41:44 +0100 (MET) | From | (Rogier Wolff) |
| |
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <19990105154611.A16497@draper.net> > By author: kernel@draper.net > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > 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 think you can mimic the BSD vfork() at the library level by using > clone() and perhaps trapping exec().
vfork was a good idea when you didn't have a memory management unit. Then you had to copy over and possibly re-link the existing process to a new place in memory. That was a costly process. Yes Unix did run on that kind of hardware in the eighties.
Nowadays the overhead is almost non-existent, so it is not neccesary to make the distinction....
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * Never blow in a cat's ear because if you do, usually after three or * * four times, they will bite your lips! And they don't let go for at * * least a minute. -- Lisa Coburn, age 9
- 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/
| |