Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | 10 Nov 1999 09:34:00 +0200 | | From | (Kai Henningsen) | | Subject | Re: vfork |
| |
torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 09.11.99 in <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911090811240.9153-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>: > > > POSIX DESCRIPTION > > > The vfork() function has the same effect as fork(), except > > > that the behaviour is undefined if the process created by > > > vfork() either modifies any data other than a variable of type > > > pid_t used to store the return value from vfork(), or returns > > > from the func= tion in which vfork() was called, or calls > > > any other function before successfully calling _exit() or one of > > > the exec family of functions. > > Just describe it the way it works. > > vfork() under Linux is actually just another case of clone(), and the old > reasons why it was considered horrible are basically all gone. The Linux > mm layer evolved to the point where it was trivial to implement, WITHOUT > any of the special hacks that the original BSD implementation had, and > that made people hate it in the BSD community. > > So the ugly part about vfork() doesn't exist any more, yet the good > attributes still do.
Well, in 2.2.12 it seems strace can't follow vfork()s without some kernel patch. Or so I gather from the docs and the failure to perform.
Is this better in 2.3.*?
MfG Kai
- 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/
|  |