Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:54:51 +0530 | | From | RVK <> | | Subject | Re: Thread_Id |
| |
Ian Campbell wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 +0530, RVK wrote: > > >>Ian Campbell wrote: >> >> >>>What Arjan is saying is that pthread_t is a cookie -- this means that >>>you cannot interpret it in any way, it is just a "thing" which you can >>>pass back to the API, that pthread_t happens to be typedef'd to unsigned >>>long int is irrelevant. >>> >>> >>Do you want to say for both 2.6.x and 2.4.x I should interpret that way ? >> >> > >As I understand it, yes, you should never try and assign any meaning to >the values. The fact that you may have been able to find some apparent >meaning under 2.4 is just a coincidence. > > > Iam sorry I don't agree on this. This confusion have created only becoz of the different behavior of pthread_self() on 2.4.18 and 2.6.x kernels. And Iam looking for clarifying my doubt. I can't digest this at all.
rvk
>Ian. > >-- >Ian Campbell >Current Noise: Nile - Annihilation Of The Wicked > >BOFH excuse #127: > >Sticky bits on disk. >. > > >
- 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/
|  |