Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Is System V.4 fork reliable?
Message-ID: <13435@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Jul 90 18:06:08 GMT
References: <480@amanue.UUCP> <13426@cbmvax.commodore.com> <573@oglvee.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <573@oglvee.UUCP> jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
-But if system calls fail simply because of a very temporary bout of activity,
-that is *not my problem*!  It's the kernel's problem.  At least it should be:
-that's what "I'm paying the kernel for" so to speak.  And *I CAN'T FIX IT*
-myself.  If utilities haven't been rewritten to do the right thing with EAGAIN
-after fork(), and I'm only a binary licensee, what can I do about it?

Oh, good grief.  It is SILLY to say that the kernel should be redesigned
to compensate for bugs in application programs.