Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:15:20 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include Makefile spawn.h unistd.h src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc Symbol.map exec.3 exec.c posix_spawn.c Message-ID: <4857D508.8070907@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl> References: <200806170633.m5H6XMJH084600@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080617134828.GA30076@zim.MIT.EDU> <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ed Schouten wrote: > * David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: >> I have no objections to this, but doesn't it defeat the whole >> purpose to implement posix_spawn() as a library function that just >> calls fork/exec? > > When (if?) applications start to use posix_spawn() we may decide to move > it into the kernel at any time. It should be okay for now. Are there any benefits of doing it in the kernel vs. doing it via fork+exec? -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4857D508.8070907>