Is System V.4 fork reliable?

[Stephen J. Friedl]

In article <18478 at rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> It isn't that the kernel =can't= sleep, but rather that someone decided
> [ for some totally random reason, I suspect ... ] that the kernel
> =shouldn't= sleep.  The solution isn't to add some kludge on top of the
> system, but rather to put back the behavior that was always there -
> the kernel sleeps in fork if it requires additional memory.

I've been following this and am not so sure I agree with this line
of thinking.  What if I >want< fork to fail if it can't do it (because
I want to reschedule the process that wants to fork for a later time).
By allowing the calling program control right away, it can make its
own choice.  If you put this in the kernel then everybody does it the
same way: how long should it wait before giving up?  Wkat kind of backoff
should it use? 

     Steve

-- 
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
+1 714 544 6561  / friedl at mtndew.Tustin.CA.US  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"I'm a simple girl; I wear a cat on my head." - Laura Dykstra @ NCR Orlando