Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() | Date | Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:24:24 -0400 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
Kenneth Albanowski <kjahds@kjahds.com> said: > On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > Why? -- Please name 5 things that require vfork to work properly.
> Four pieces of old software -- unfortunately I don't have any old software > on me at the moment -- plus an OS/processor that can't support fork(). > > Oh, and, <http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/kernel/vfork.html>, just for > the heck of it. > > No, not very good excuses. But it's pleasent to make something reasonably > elegant -- and _quite_ traditional -- with so little effort.
Next question: How much performance increase for vfork(2) (not necesarily "customary semantics", just lightweight fork(2) for (almost) immediate exec(2))?
[Easy to do and elegant != worth the trouble] -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- 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/
| |