From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 15:15:43 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19DA106564A; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk1.360sip.com [72.236.70.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19328FC17; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.0.40] ([204.244.149.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5HFFNoC012563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:15:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4857D508.8070907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:15:20 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Schouten References: <200806170633.m5H6XMJH084600@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080617134828.GA30076@zim.MIT.EDU> <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David Xu , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include Makefile spawn.h unistd.h src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc Symbol.map exec.3 exec.c posix_spawn.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:15:44 -0000 Ed Schouten wrote: > * David Schultz wrote: >> I have no objections to this, but doesn't it defeat the whole >> purpose to implement posix_spawn() as a library function that just >> calls fork/exec? > > When (if?) applications start to use posix_spawn() we may decide to move > it into the kernel at any time. It should be okay for now. Are there any benefits of doing it in the kernel vs. doing it via fork+exec? -Maxim