On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Michiel Boland wrote:
> >>
> >> How is the proc FS going to handle tasks that share the same PID?
> >
> > Badly.
> >
> > Linus
> >
> > (Seriously, the CLONE_PID option needs to be cleaned up a bit, and I
> > suspect I'll make a 16-bit "thread ID" in the high bits of the pid or
> > something like that)
>
> Great. Could thread ID 0 mean "all threads at once" and the individual
> threads are numbered starting from 1? That would let me kill -9 the
> whole group at once or just one thread at a time.
This does sound like a great way to please both those of us who are nervous
about not having unique pids, and those who insist on having them.
If you ignore the existence of the 16-bit thread ID by zeroing it, you get a
kill which affects all of the threads.
In fact, this sounds so good that there's got to be something technically
wrong with it.... :) :)
:) lilo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMgUT2J23L4XLlypxAQFE2gP9GFeCmzTbIwoEwZqXJN4sEaShQDFk+hcN
pMNlhP1Z6Og6BOtA8jVyyWm6RcLIdad/l+uGv2Fz9/8dJm+OaoUIc+pa/UcqKdts
XdMew+KIWUPaZgLFXq0nftebsZxN4n5gLbUuXnrvdDOdgVfpDNt9jIKPTwmywt9u
UohIKAIsRkg=
=HBmi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----