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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.019 / U:89.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site