[INN-COMMITTERS] inn (frontends/rnews.c innd/util.c nnrpd/p

Forrest J. Cavalier III mibsoft at epix.net
Mon Mar 11 12:13:30 UTC 2002

>     Date: Saturday, March 9, 2002 @ 22:17:59
>   Author: rra
>     Path: /dist1/cvs/isc/inn/inn
> Modified: frontends/rnews.c innd/util.c nnrpd/perm.c
> Never use vfork.  The constraints on what one can do after vfork in the
> child are too strict (so strict that I believe that all existing uses of
> vfork in INN violated them on a platform with a real vfork) and the speed
> gain, where present, isn't worth it.

First, I don't have a problem with this change.  I am writing
to make a suggestion.

Code that uses vfork() correctly is easier to get working
on Windows NT and with pthreads.

When you know why vfork is not used correctly, those are
often the pieces that need to change to use pthreads.

(The changed line counts look small, I didn't look at the 
changes.)  But if you could remember to insert comments
about why something is not thread-safe or vfork safe, it
will help when INN goes to threads (which will be a couple of
versions from now, I know.)

More information about the inn-workers mailing list