From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D580D6B0047 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from makko.or.mcafeemobile.com by x35.xmailserver.org with [XMail 1.26 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:22:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:22:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi Subject: Re: [aarcange@redhat.com: [PATCH] fork vs gup(-fast) fix] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20090311174103.GA11979@elte.hu> <20090311183748.GK27823@random.random> <20090311195935.GO27823@random.random> <20090311205529.GR27823@random.random> <20090311215721.GS27823@random.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In particular, "fork()" in a threaded program is almost always wrong. If > you want to exec another program from a threaded one, you should either > just do execve() (which kills all threads) or you should do vfork+execve > (which has none of the COW issues). Didn't follow the lengthy thread, but if we make fork+exec to fail inside a threaded program, we might end up making a lot of people unhappy. - Davide -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org