From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 20:54:53 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 ACDF8106564A; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:54:53 +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 69C3B8FC15; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:54:53 +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 m5HKsWh9032647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <48582484.3040606@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:54:28 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <200806170633.m5H6XMJH084600@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080617140600.GE1176@hoeg.nl> <4857D508.8070907@FreeBSD.org> <200806171122.41340.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200806171122.41340.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ed Schouten , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David Xu , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@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 20:54:53 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 17 June 2008 11:15:20 am Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> 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? > > Speed. You don't have to go mark all your pages as COW or some such only to > turn around and throw the new mappings away and undo that. Don't we have vfork() for that? -Maxim