From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263349AbTD1BhV (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:37:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263140AbTD1BhV (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:37:21 -0400 Received: from user72.209.42.38.dsli.com ([209.42.38.72]:22665 "EHLO nolab.conman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263349AbTD1BhT (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:37:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:49:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Grosberg To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall. In-Reply-To: <3EAC86C4.5070200@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > POSIX has a spawn interface, see on modern systems. A syscall > should be compatible with this interface. Hmmm. Okay, it isn't listed in my POSIX reference (which is really dated). I don't have any docs on this... I did grep around some header files on a Linux box and it looks to be a fairly complex interface. I'm not opposed to supporting the interface, but I would like the syscall to be fairly light-weight. Would my original proposal cover the POSIX spec with some userland glue? L8r, Mark G.