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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 12:00:06 MST