Re: Porting vfork()
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:52:52 -0500
In message <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901110451590.19839-100000@dahlin.fairplay.no>,
Torbj
orn Lindgren writes:
+-----
| On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
| > In message <Pine.LNX.4.05.9901100143580.27606-100000@pele.fairplay.no>,
| > Torbjorn Lindgren writes:
| > | The requirements are basically (paraphrased):
| > | * Don't modify any data other than a variable of type pid_t used to store
| > | the return value from vfork()
| > | * Don't return from the function in which vfork() was called.
| > | * Don't call any functions before successfully calling _exit(),or one of
| > | the exec family of functions.
| >
| > The restrictions are consistent with safety requirements when using a "true"
| > vfork(), so Solaris's implementation is valid. SUS is simply saying that
|
| According to the Solaris man-pages (5.5.1) it suspends the calling thread
| until the child either calls exec*() or exits.
|
| As I said earlier, this ISN'T in the online version of SUSv2!!! This makes
+--->8
So they describe the restrictions of the method instead of the method
itself. You apparently think that's significant; I don't see where it makes
a difference. In fact, I *expect* them to do so: they don't want to annoy
any vendors by specifying method, so they take the safe way out and use a
description that avoids any mention of the method but describe restrictions
that are compatible with the most common method (other than #define).
Welcome to the world of vendor standards.
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/