Re: Pvfork()

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>]

"Nicholas S Castellano" <entropy@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> writes:

|> Currently the kernel blocks the parent after a Pvfork().  Is there any
|> reason why this can't be changed?  After all, these processes are
|> supposed to be running in the same address space after the Pvfork(),
|> and there doesn't seem to be much point in only letting one of them
|> run.

I have just recetly learned that vfork() is supposed to block even
under "real" Unix (if it's available at all).  So there is no real
need for a non-blocking Pvfork() since no Unix code depends on it :-)
Anyway, the problem with the shared stack would make it as difficult
as a non-blocking Pfork().

Andreas.