From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:13:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:12:53 -0400 Received: from eventhorizon.antefacto.net ([193.120.245.3]:63156 "EHLO eventhorizon.antefacto.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:12:41 -0400 Message-ID: <3B2F79E9.4080703@AnteFacto.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:12:25 +0100 From: Padraig Brady User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-ac4 i686; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Alan Cox quote? (was: Re: accounting for threads) In-Reply-To: <3B2F769C.DCDB790E@kegel.com> <15151.30600.896238.78222@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org We'll yes it's true you can program everything like a state machine if the correct OS interfaces are there. I don't think they are though ATM. Also some things are more elegantly implemented using threads, whereas others are better as state machines. Padraig. David S. Miller wrote: >Dan Kegel writes: > > Alan, did you really say that, or are people taking your name in vain? > >He did say it, and I for one agree with him. :-) > >Later, >David S. Miller >davem@redhat.com >