![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Mark Grosberg wrote: > Is there any interest in a single system call that will perform both a > fork() and exec()? Could this save some extra work of doing a > copy_mm(), copy_signals(), etc? How about doing vfork() right (fixing the "what if execve(2) fails" race) instead? > I know almost all of my fork()-exec() code does almost the same thing. I > guess vfork() was a potential solution, but this somehow seems cleaner > (and still may be more efficient than having to issue two syscalls)... > the downside is, of course, another syscall. Which is a major showstopper, because it'd only be useful to non-portable, Unix-specific applications (thus it wouldn't be put to much use). OTOH, copy-on-write pages will eliminate much of the overhead already. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||