Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:10:16 -0500 | | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | | Subject | Re: vfork |
| |
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:26:26 +0100 (MET) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
People tell me that vfork() no longer is equivalent to fork() as the manpage states. Unfortunately, they are right, so I wrote a new page - see below.
I consider the introduction of vfork into Linux a very bad move (as will be clear from the text I wrote), but since there were people writing code and submitting patches there must be some positive side to this horrible kludge.
While in general, I agree with you that vfork is not the nicest thing in the world, it's not necessarily much worse than some of the other things you can do with sys_clone(), which also allows two processes to share virtual memory space.
Despite BSD's man page warning off folks from depending on vfork's semantics, there were programs --- including BSD's csh, which did use vfork() so that the path hashing statistics could be accurately updated. So, there is some excuse for actually implementing vfork() in the traditional bad old way.
I think you were being a little bit too harsh, myself, but it is true that warning people that using it compromises the portability of their programs is perfectly fair.
- Ted
- 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/
|  |