From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 30 14:54:12 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C1C1837B401; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 036F843F93; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D42832A7EA; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <37015.1051726476@critter.freebsd.dk> 
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:54:11 -0700
From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Message-Id: <20030430215411.D42832A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/amd64/sys vfork.S 
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:54:13 -0000

"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
> In message <200304301813.h3UIDEKt020259@repoman.freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm writ
    es
> :
> >peter       2003/04/30 11:13:14 PDT
> >
> >  FreeBSD src repository
> >
> >  Modified files:
> >    lib/libc/amd64/sys   vfork.S 
> >  Log:
> >  Update for AMD64 (repocopied from i386/sys/Ovfork.S - why is it O?)
> 
> "Old" I belive, weren't you around when we made vfork() do what the
> manual page had said all the time and everything from inetd to /bin/csh
> broke ?

Well yes, but it defines a function called "vfork", not "Ovfork".  Yes, I
remember the excitement it caused.

Incidently, we also have an 'obreak' syscall, which brk() and sbrk() call.
We don't actually use the sbrk(2) syscall - sbrk.S uses obreak(2).

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5