Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:03:23 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() |
| |
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Kenneth Albanowski wrote: > > I do think a sempahore would be appropriate to avoid the possibility of > recursion. I can just see someone coverting the "double fork" trick into a > "double vfork" trick, and really confusing things. At some point a list > might make sense, but this is probably getting needlessly complex.
The semaphore has the problem that you can deadlock and create unkillable processes. Not nice.
A semaphore with "down_interruptible()" would be acceptable, I guess.
Linus
- 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/
| |