Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)

From: J . A . Magallon (jamagallon@able.es)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 08:48:37 EST

Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: The Joy of Forking"
Previous message: Alan Shutko: "Re: sizeof problem in kernel modules"
In reply to: Rob Landley: "Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)"
Next in thread: Galen Hancock: "Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This discussion seems to go nowhere. Thanks for your comments. I know much
more on Linux than before.

I am happy that processes in Linux are so marvelous. Linux does not need
a decent POSIX threads implementation because the same functionality can
be achived with processes. Do what you like, you write the kernel code.
I could write my soft using fork special fetaures in Linux.
But I want it to be portable. If threads in linux are so bad, it is bad
luck for me. I will go slow. It its the only portable way todo afordable
shared memory threading without filling your program of shm-xxxx.

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.5-ac17 #2 SMP Fri Jun 22 01:36:07 CEST 2001 i686
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: The Joy of Forking"
Previous message: Alan Shutko: "Re: sizeof problem in kernel modules"
In reply to: Rob Landley: "Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)"
Next in thread: Galen Hancock: "Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:11 EST