From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263199AbTD1MdI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:33:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263422AbTD1MdI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:33:08 -0400 Received: from krusty.dt.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.163.1]:8199 "EHLO mail.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263199AbTD1MdH (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:33:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:45:14 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall. Message-ID: <20030428124514.GA12662@merlin.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Mark Grosberg wrote: > Is there any interest in a single system call that will perform both a > fork() and exec()? Could this save some extra work of doing a > copy_mm(), copy_signals(), etc? How about doing vfork() right (fixing the "what if execve(2) fails" race) instead? > I know almost all of my fork()-exec() code does almost the same thing. I > guess vfork() was a potential solution, but this somehow seems cleaner > (and still may be more efficient than having to issue two syscalls)... > the downside is, of course, another syscall. Which is a major showstopper, because it'd only be useful to non-portable, Unix-specific applications (thus it wouldn't be put to much use). OTOH, copy-on-write pages will eliminate much of the overhead already.