Re: bugfix for vacation
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
>>On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 11:05:25PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>> On Jul 15, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
>> > Who is the culprit now?
>> > - Linux vfork implementation
>> > - vacation.c really should use fork instead of vfork
>> > - vacation.c closes too much files. It shouldn't do this when using
>> 2. vfork() is only permissible directly before an exec() call.
>Further investigation reveals that a 2.0 kernel has no problems. Looks like
>only the newer kernels implement a REAL vfork.
The man pages still say:
BUGS
Under Linux, vfork is merely an alias for fork.
Is the man page now wrong for 2.2?
--
She says "This, is the real thing,
coz you're never gonna find the door"
I'm on my way.
Reply to: