Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:22:40 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, src-committers@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@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: <200806171122.41340.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4857D508.8070907@FreeBSD.org> References: <200806170633.m5H6XMJH084600@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl> <4857D508.8070907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 11:15:20 am Maxim Sobolev wrote: > 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? Speed. You don't have to go mark all your pages as COW or some such only to turn around and throw the new mappings away and undo that. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200806171122.41340.jhb>