Alvin Starr writes:
> On 25 Mar 2000, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> > sasha@mysql.com writes:
> >
> > > My guess is that clone() should return very fast to the original thread, but
> > > might take a while to return to the newly created thread, which is what is
> > > causing the problem.
> >
> > The kernel does not allow using clone() directly because some
> > additional functionality required to implement the correct POSIX
> > threads behaviour is missing. Do you think we make these things slow
> > on purpose?
>
> there is a saying I like:
> " Never attribute to malice that which can be adquatly explained by
> incompatence. "
Erm, this comment could be taken the wrong way.
> I am sure that if the next version of the thread library required a
> set of kernel patches to run effectivly then those patches would end
> up in the kernel source tree within a version or so.
Mate, where have you been? The day Linus lets user-space dictate what
goes into the kernel is the day hell freezes over. If you want a patch
to go into the kernel, you need to convince him it's a good idea.
Adding a dependency in user-space, expecting it to "force his hand",
will not help. It will probably just piss him off. Or make him laugh.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:19 EST