Messages in this thread | | | From | cd_smith@ou ... | Date | Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:25:29 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: kernel thread support - LWP's |
| |
Jamie Lokier wrote: > Larry's given a very nice set of reasons why different ids for > different threads is useful.
Larry McVoy wrote: > [quite a bit]
and Richard Gooch wrote: > Sure, I'm happy with a new kind of process group. In the docs we can > say "this is for threads". Couple that with a new kill() syscall which > does "kill one of a group" and we can support POSIX semantics.
Okay, I'm beginning to notice a trend here... would people be happier if I gave you a patch that did this "process clustering" thing I keep mentioning? I despise the idea, and I still think it's a lot cleaner to do it the normal way... but it wouldn't be any trouble to do both. If I understand Larry correctly, though, I don't think that would placate his objections. :(
Comments here?
Richard again: > I think we've gotten to the point where we're better off violating > (obscure) POSIX semantics and keeping the kernel clean, rather than > uglifying the kernel to support unnecessary semantics. > > Others may disagree ;-)
That would be me (disagreeing, that is). IMVHO we'd be better off just screwing POSIX altogether than pretending to support it, only to disagree on points like this. We either support POSIX, or not, and "almost" supporting standards has already caused enough grief by commercial companies who have an incentive to tell lies like that. We don't have to do so as well.
Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |