From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: starlight-Utvwg/EOxnhfq8cQ1yknNg@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: suggestion for improvement to vfork() man page Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:50:11 -0500 Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20120207164707.03c1f410@binnacle.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Frysinger Cc: starlight-Utvwg/EOxnhfq8cQ1yknNg@public.gmane.org, linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org +(However, on such systems, +the preferred standard way of accomplishing the same result is to use +.BR posix_spawn (3).) I'm not sure I agree on this. Linux posix_spawn() calls fork() which for us is undesirable on MMU systems due to the cost of copying large page tables. To the extent that we would add support for non-MMU platforms, we would stick with direct invocation of vfork() even if the posix_spawn() on those targets used vfork() instead of fork(). One less #ifdef, of which we have far too many as it is. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html