hush in arm nommu environment

[Per Hallsmark]

well... the exact same style is made in other places
for nommu portability.

I only have two scripts in my target, one rc and one
upgrade, both works fine starting background stuff etc.
They do some if's, starting background processes, variabel handling
and so on.

Since, with working backspace ;-), hush is such a better
solution than sash I'd rather stick with hush and take
eventual bugs/"nommu features" as they come.

So, while not perfect, it's better than other current
solutions at least for our usage.

Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007 09:21, Per Hallsmark wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've tried out the hush shell in busybox 1.6.1.
>> Seems to work fairly well with the patch last in
>> this mail.
> ...
>> --- busybox-1.6.1.orig/shell/hush.c     2007-06-30 17:06:37.000000000 +0200
>> +++ busybox-1.6.1/shell/hush.c  2007-08-02 15:41:22.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -658,7 +658,11 @@
>>          pid_t pid;
>>
>>          debug_printf_jobs("got tty sig %d in pid %d\n", sig, getpid());
>> +#if BB_MMU
>>          pid = fork();
>> +#else
>> +       pid = vfork();
>> +#endif
>>          if (pid < 0) /* can't fork. Pretend there was no ctrl-Z */
>>                  return;
>>          ctrl_z_flag = 1;
> 
> I'm afraid this maybe works for some simple scripts, but I'm sure as hell
> there are nasty bugs. Code does assume that after fork() we create
> new process. Simply replacing it with vfork is not going to work stably.
> --
> vda