From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:19:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:19:19 -0400 Received: from be02.imake.com ([151.200.87.11]:14094 "EHLO be02.tfsm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:19:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3B290EFB.B0BC77D0@247media.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:22:36 -0400 From: Russell Leighton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: threading question In-Reply-To: <20010614210138.A15912@home.ds9a.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org bert hubert wrote: > > > I see lots of people only using: > pthread_create()/pthread_join() > mutex_lock/unlock > sem_post/sem_wait > no signals > > My gut feeling is that you could implement this subset in a way that is both > fast and right - although it would not be 'pthreads compliant'. Can anybody > confirm this feeling? ... add condition variables (maybe a small per-thread storage area) and I'd toss out pthreads for most apps I write...especially if it is very efficient. -- --------------------------------------------------- Russell Leighton russell.leighton@247media.com ---------------------------------------------------