From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:16:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:16:45 -0400 Received: from vagabond.btnet.cz ([62.80.85.77]:8832 "EHLO vagabond.btnet.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 05:16:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:16:17 +0200 From: Jan Hudec To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Message-ID: <20010630110907.A898@vagabond> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, > 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. AFAIK, there is a POSIX thread library (libpthread) for Linux, that wraps clone calls in a way portable to other unices. It uses processes (with memory sharing) from kernel point of view, but should look like POSIX threads from application point of view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec