Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:14:33 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Ryan Thompson <ryan@sasknow.com> Cc: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Lions and tigers and... chickens? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011231010840.01d814d0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20011229230235.Q46948-100000@catalyst.sasknow.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011229182741.02ff21a0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:41 PM 12/29/2001, Ryan Thompson wrote: >It is not necessary to exec() the chicken following a fork(). Actually, either an execve(2) or prompt termination of the child process is expected. From the vfork(2) man page: >Vfork() can be used to create new processes without fully copying the ad- >dress space of the old process, which is horrendously inefficient in a >paged environment. It is useful when the purpose of fork(2) would have >been to create a new system context for an execve(2). Vfork() differs >from fork(2) in that the child borrows the parent's memory and thread of >control until a call to execve(2) or an exit (either by a call to exit(3) >or abnormally). The parent process is suspended while the child is using >its resources. All of which, by the way, can be done either with or without Colonel threads. ;-) --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011231010840.01d814d0>