From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYH9G-0003pQ-I5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:17:06 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KYH9D-0003on-Of
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:17:05 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52384 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYH9C-0003oX-PT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:17:03 -0400
Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:64421)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com>) id 1KYH9C-0004SS-Fc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:17:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:16:48 +0100
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/13] Handle terminating
	signals.
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Message-ID: <C4DADA10.2679D%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <48B51A12.3040101@qumranet.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

On 27/8/08 10:10, "Avi Kivity" <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:

>> Message passing, using the right language tools (in C that unfortunately
>> means writing your own or going back to 60s textbooks)
>>   
> 
> Oh, if we're talking languages, then I'm all for pure functional
> languages.  If you are side effects free, you can let the runtime do all
> the threading for you automatically.

Practical efficient implementation of this is still an open research
problem, I believe. At least as far as auto-parallelisation is concerned.
It's one of those pure-functional-language myths.

 -- Keir