Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!amanue!jr
From: jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Is System V.4 fork reliable?
Message-ID: <480@amanue.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 90 11:17:05 GMT
References: <561@oglvee.UUCP> <32@kings.co.uk>
Organization: Amanuensis Inc., Grindstone, PA
Lines: 19

In <32@kings.co.uk> lls@kings.co.uk (Lady Lodge Systems) writes:

>In article <561@oglvee.UUCP> jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
>>Somewhere along in the development of System V, fork became an unreliable
>>system call....

>>My question is:  Is this *FIXED* in V.4?

>Damned Good Question!

Which, alas, no one has answered.  Surely *somebody* reading this group can
look at the V.4 source and let us know.  To repeat:  do any kernel routines
called as result of a fork issue kmem_alloc() with the flag KM_NOSLEEP?  If the
answer is yes then it would seem to me V.4 will have the same problem as V.3.
-- 
 Jim Rosenberg                                               -- cgh!amanue!jr
     CIS: 71515,124                              UUCP:         /    /    |
     WELL: jer                                          dsi.com  pitt!  ditka!
     BIX: jrosenberg    Internet: cgh!amanue!jr@dsi.com