On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Matthias Buelow wrote:

> spectacular.  The best idea would imho be to implement something like
> plan9's rfork as system call; and use fork/vfork etc. as library
> functions.  Then the kernel API is clean again -- there's only one
> function to do it, and no additional crufty hack without added
> functionality is required for some special optimizations.

netbsd does have a clone(), which is really close.  anyway, there is only 
only one kernel api.  everything uses fork1(), which is used to implement 
fork(), vfork(), clone() (and on openbsd, rfork(), which is really not 
much different from clone() that i can tell.)  supporting vfork in the 
kernel costs nothing.


-- 
we owe so much money we're not broke we're broken
we're so poor we can't even pay attention