[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches
From: |
Oliver Kiddle |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches |
Date: |
Tue, 24 May 2005 10:52:17 +0200 |
Tet wrote:
>
> These days, yes it is. The number of systems actually running nmh without
> COW is probably pretty negligible by now. Even for those where vfork()
> is actually faster (like NetBSD, for example), there's no real advantage
> to using vfork() unless you're forking an awful lot of processes, and
> we're not.
I tried searching on Google and what I could find backs up this point.
The UNIX programming FAQ suggests that it is probably unwise to use
vfork() at all (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/programmer/faq/index.html).
So how about we change all the instances to fork()? If it causes
problems for some system then presumably we'll find out. And judging by
the original Debian bug report, it would be solving a real issue on at
least Linux.
Oliver
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, (continued)
Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Oliver Kiddle, 2005/05/22
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/22
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Tet, 2005/05/22
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches,
Oliver Kiddle <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Mike O'Dell, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, mlh, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Harald Geyer, 2005/05/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] outstanding patches, Robert Elz, 2005/05/26