Article View: mod.computers.68k
Article #209Re: Questions about the use of fork()
From: on Monster Island
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1987 09:05
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1987 09:05
25 lines
1595 bytes
1595 bytes
mwm@violet.berkeley.edu wrote - What I prefer is two system calls:
>1) fexec - run another process in a fork, with a block describing how
>the environment should be modified on the way. As stated above, this
>does what you want for a new process most of the time.
This seems highly reasonable and probably should have been there all
along.
>2) newthread - roughly, vfork in 4BSD. This creates another process
>that shares all resources with the parent. If either one does an
>exit() (or exec()) the other one just continues. YOu probably want to
>schedule the child to run first. Some technic for rendezvous will be
>required.
The only gotcha here is the issue of signal handling between processes.
If the parent ublock and ptable stuff stick around is it possible for
the parent to take the signals meant for the child?
PS - this sounds very much like mach eh?
Steve Blasingame (Oklahoma City)
ihnp4!occrsh!gorgo!bsteve
bsteve@eris.berkeley.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8703211200.AA21533@gorgo.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!gorgo.UUCP!bsteveShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!gorgo.UUCP!bsteve From: bsteve@gorgo.UUCP (on Monster Island) Newsgroups: mod.computers.68k Subject: Re: Questions about the use of fork() Message-ID: <8703211200.AA21533@gorgo.att.com> Date: Mon, 23-Mar-87 04:05:58 EST Article-I.D.: gorgo.8703211200.AA21533 Posted: Mon Mar 23 04:05:58 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Mar-87 04:21:12 EST Sender: mwm@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 25 Approved: info-68k@ucbvax.berkeley.edu