Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!quiroz
From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: vfork (was Re: Paging page tables)
Message-ID: <1990Jul11.191235.8117@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 90 19:12:35 GMT
References: <920@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5830@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz)
Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 27


In <5830@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp>,
mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) wrote:
| In article <920@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) writes:
| >>With copy-on-write scheme, a page need swap space
| >>when the page is written something.
| 
| >But not until.  Page and swap file space allocation is as postponeable
| >as the memory copy.
| 
| NO.

Care to enlighten us, or are the uppercase letters supposed to be
enough?  And where did you get the idea that anybody around comp.arch
likes MVS?  Not from Jon's article, I hope.

While I hold your attention, what is the point of this discussion?
Are you saying that the semantics of vfork are so useful that they
should be kept in spite of its utility being a thing of the past?
If so, can you say it without getting excited?


-- 
                                      Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez
                                      Department of Computer Science
                                      University of Rochester
                                      Rochester,  NY 14627