Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Porting vfork() | Date | Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:05:51 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> said:
[...]
> That said, now that multiple tasks can share an MMU context, it would > probably be quite easy to support vfork() semantics.
All I've ever read on the subject says vfork(2) was an unclean implementation of fork(2) semantics (sort of) for efficiency sake. It makes no sense to work to replicate accidental, totally non-wanted and even in the original explicitly marked as not-to-be-relied-on semantics. Easy to do or not. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
- 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/
| |