lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Porting vfork()
Date
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.041 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site