From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261173AbVGNL1S (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:27:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261186AbVGNL1S (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:27:18 -0400 Received: from BTNL-TN-DSL-static-006.0.144.59.touchtelindia.net ([59.144.0.6]:23681 "EHLO mail.prodmail.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261173AbVGNL1Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:27:16 -0400 Message-ID: <42D64B83.4000605@prodmail.net> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:54:51 +0530 From: RVK Reply-To: rvk@prodmail.net Organization: GSEC1 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Campbell CC: Arjan van de Ven , Robert Hancock , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Thread_Id References: <4mfcK-UT-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <4mUJ1-5ZG-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <42CB465E.6080104@shaw.ca> <42D5F934.6000603@prodmail.net> <1121327103.3967.14.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <42D63916.7000007@prodmail.net> <1121337567.18265.26.camel@icampbell-debian> <42D6462B.8030706@prodmail.net> <1121339809.10537.6.camel@icampbell-debian> In-Reply-To: <1121339809.10537.6.camel@icampbell-debian> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. >. > > >