On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:45 +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > tis 2009-11-24 klockan 15:06 +1100 skrev Robert Collins: > > > http://www.netbsd.org/docs/kernel/vfork.html has some interesting notes > > from the BSD world about this. > > vfork is fundamentally broken. Beyond the obvious (that it doesn't separate the memory out?) > there is other alternatives coming, getting around the virtual memory > issue when starting new processes. What are they called? -Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
