On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 +0530, RVK wrote: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.
Ian Campbell wrote:
What Arjan is saying is that pthread_t is a cookie -- this means thatDo you want to say for both 2.6.x and 2.4.x I should interpret that way ?
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.
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.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Nile - Annihilation Of The Wicked
BOFH excuse #127:
Sticky bits on disk.
.