Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!sar0
From: sar0@cbnewsl.att.com (stephen.a.rago)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Is System V.4 fork reliable?
Message-ID: <1990Jul27.201113.10736@cbnewsl.att.com>
Date: 27 Jul 90 20:11:13 GMT
References: <561@oglvee.UUCP> <32@kings.co.uk> <480@amanue.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 14

In article <480@amanue.UUCP>, jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
> 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?
> 
> 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?

Yes.