Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:37:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Sujal Patel <smpatel@umiacs.umd.edu> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rfork() changes Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.92.960416193544.5890E-100000@xi.dorm.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <9604161549.AA17258@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Garrett Wollman wrote: > 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. I think this would be the best way to go about it. Looking over the entire source tree, it doesn't look like anything will break if vfork() is actually fork(). Also, we should declare vfork() as ``obsolete'' in the man page. At this point, there is no advantage at all to using the vfork() syscall instead of fork(). Any dissent? Sujal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.92.960416193544.5890E-100000>