> But that foregoes the point that the code is far more complex and harder to > make 'obviously correct', a concept that *does* translate well to userspace. One point is that 'obviously correct' is much harder to 'prove' for threads (or processes with shared memory) than you might think. With a state machine, you can 'prove' that object accesses won't conflict much more easily. With a threaded or process based model, you have to spend considerable time thinking about multiple readers and writers and locking. One metric I use to evaluate program complexity is how big of a headache I get when trying to prove something "correct". Multi-process or multi-threaded code hurts more than a well written state machine. Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Threads are processes that share mor... Stephen Satchell
- Re: Threads are processes that shar... ognen
- Re: Threads are processes that shar... J . A . Magallon
- Re: Threads are processes that ... Larry McVoy
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Joerg Pommnitz
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Chris Ricker
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Mike Castle
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Mike Porter
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Jes Sorensen
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Alexander Viro
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads... Rusty Russell
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for thr... Alexander Viro
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for... Alexander Viro
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting... Richard Gooch
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Rok Papež
- Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) Rob Landley