Hi, On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM, <starlight@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +(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() I think isn't quite correct. I believe glibc's posix_spawn uses vfork() where it can. See sysdeps/posix/spawni.c::spawni(). > 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. So, I'll change that last sentence to [[ (POSIX.1-2008 removed vfork() from the standard; the POSIX rationale for the posix_spawn(3) function notes that that function, which provides functionality equivalent to fork(2)+exec(3) is designed to be implementable on systems that lack an MMU.) ]] What do you think? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
