Re: Porting vfork()
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:03:23 -0800 (PST)
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Kenneth Albanowski wrote:
>
> I do think a sempahore would be appropriate to avoid the possibility of
> recursion. I can just see someone coverting the "double fork" trick into a
> "double vfork" trick, and really confusing things. At some point a list
> might make sense, but this is probably getting needlessly complex.
The semaphore has the problem that you can deadlock and create unkillable
processes. Not nice.
A semaphore with "down_interruptible()" would be acceptable, I guess.
Linus
-
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/