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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site