> 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.
Just to add fuel to the flames ;-).
I'm not convinced that it's even necessary for compatibility. Solaris 2.6
and 2.7 man pages, for example, state that vfork will be removed in a future
version. So do FreeBSD 3.0 man pages.
later,
chris
--
Chris Ricker kaboom@gatech.edu
chris.ricker@m.cc.utah.edu
-
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/