Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:49:40 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Mike Grupenhoff <kashmir@umiacs.UMD.EDU> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rfork() changes Message-ID: <9604161549.AA17258@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960416111114.14742B-100000@xanadu.umiacs.umd.edu> References: <199604161003.SAA04157@jhome.DIALix.COM> <Pine.SUN.3.93.960416111114.14742B-100000@xanadu.umiacs.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:32:00 -0400 (EDT), Mike Grupenhoff <kashmir@umiacs.UMD.EDU> said: > IMO, considering that the point of vfork() was as a faster fork() for > exec()ing a new program, and not for address space sharing, programs that > abuse the address sharing bogusness present in old implementations deserve > to die. I can't imagine too many of them exist anyway. I would have no problem with implementing vfork() in libc as a call for fork(). Then, we can redeclare vfork() as LIBCOMPAT in syscalls.master, using fork() as the function, and eliminate all the kernel cruft completely. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9604161549.AA17258>