Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Who is responsible for a retry
Message-ID: <13468@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 1 Aug 90 21:23:53 GMT
References: <866@mwtech.UUCP> <1809@necisa.ho.necisa.oz> <18479@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <18479@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>fork() never failed before for lack of kernel memory - the change in
>behavior was recently introduced - this is what people are complaining
>about.

Actually, there have been several different implementations of fork(),
all of which have been able to fail for reasons of a transient shortage
of resources.  The details are the only thing that have varied..