lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.089 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site