Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:02:55PM +0100, Gábor Lénárt took 0 lines to write:
> Hello,
> 
> Ok, you're absolutly right here. My problem is to find some solution and not
> to change the behaviour of fork() of course :) It's quite annoying to
> introduce some kind of IPC between parent and childs just for transferring a
> single pid_t ;-) Using exit status would be great (I would transfer "n")

But IPC, especially shared memory, would be great for this if you can
set up the shmid ahead of time. It would certainly be fast.

Kurt
-- 
The study of non-linear physics is like the study of non-elephant
biology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• References:
  • OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
    • From: Gábor Lénárt <[email protected]>
  • Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
    • From: Gábor Lénárt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2 of 2] __raw_memcpy_toio32 for x86_64
• Previous by thread: RE: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
• Next by thread: Re: OT: fork(): parent or child should run first?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]