Re: Threads

[Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>]

Shaya Potter wrote:
> Shouldn't the work being done on "thread groups" help with this? 

Yes.

> Or was that work scrapped?  

I don't think it was scrapped.  Maybe it was put on hold until
the corresponding glibc changes could be made.  (There seems
to be an impedence mismatch between the kernel folks and the
glibc folks sometimes.)

(See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=96793582803299&w=2 for
a recent message on the subject.)
- Dan

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thorsten Kukuk" <kukuk@suse.de>
> To: <lsb-discuss@linuxbase.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Threads
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 01, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> >
> > > At the recent open source database summit[1], I asked the developers
> > > there whether people had problems with threads on Linux.
> > >
> > > The answer I got was that the semantic differences from POSIX weren't
> > > really a problem, but they really, really wanted better debugging.
> >
> > I always hear from ISVs that it is a pain on Linux that getpid return
> > different values for threads. So you have no chance to detect if you run
> > in a thread or if there was a fork.