Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on

• Previous message: Thorsten Kranzkowski: "[patch] remove some gcc warnings"
• In reply to: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Next in thread: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Next in thread: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Reply: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

   Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:10:32 -0700
   From: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com>

> The requirement makes sense to me, from a
> user standpoint.

   It would make the most sense for it to just surplant the thread that
   called it, I think. I don't see what the value of having all the
   other theads asyncronously disappear is.

How would you implement process id inheritance? I'm pretty sure
that's demanded by POSIX ever since 1998.

And for 1:N thread libraries it is unavoidable.

Mark
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: tenthumbs: "2.2.17pre20 VM Error"
• Previous message: Thorsten Kranzkowski: "[patch] remove some gcc warnings"
• In reply to: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Next in thread: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Next in thread: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Reply: Mitchell Blank Jr: "Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 27 2000 - 10:20:28 EDT