lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.293 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site