> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 kernel@draper.net wrote:
>
> > So, the question: is linux vfork() behavior annoying anyone else and is it
> > worth fixing? (other than to eliminate its appearance in the BUG area of the
> > Linux fork() man page ;)
>
> Given that vfork() isn't implemented yet, I'd say that noone feels
> particularly interested in it. With clone already in place, it could be
> implemented fairly easily, but that doesn't mean that it should: the
> manpage for vfork() on a Solaris box I have access to claims that the
> function will be removed in a future release. Also, vfork() has very
> wierd semantics (something about returning EOF on reading from ttys?) that
> would be a chore to implement. Linux would probably be better served
> implementing a spawn() type creature, as that's the problem vfork() meant
> to solve.
>
> -ben
>
I agree absolutely. I'm not for increasing the kernel size to
help port bad code. If fork() won't work, a few lines will fix
the code being ported and everybody is happy.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.1.131 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
-
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/