From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932680AbWALBjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:39:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932678AbWALBjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:39:05 -0500 Received: from spooner.celestial.com ([192.136.111.35]:26008 "EHLO spooner.celestial.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932680AbWALBjD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:39:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:38:58 -0500 From: Kurt Wall To: =?iso-8859-1?B?R+Fib3IgTOlu4XJ0?= Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first? Message-ID: <20060112013858.GB6178@kurtwerks.com> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?B?R+Fib3IgTOlu4XJ0?= , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060111123745.GB30219@lgb.hu> <1136983910.2929.39.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060111130255.GC30219@lgb.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20060111130255.GC30219@lgb.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.15krw X-Woot: Woot! Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:02:55PM +0100, Gábor Lénárt took 0 lines to write: > Hello, > > Ok, you're absolutly right here. My problem is to find some solution and not > to change the behaviour of fork() of course :) It's quite annoying to > introduce some kind of IPC between parent and childs just for transferring a > single pid_t ;-) Using exit status would be great (I would transfer "n") But IPC, especially shared memory, would be great for this if you can set up the shmid ahead of time. It would certainly be fast. Kurt -- The study of non-linear physics is like the study of non-elephant biology.