Reuben Martin wrote: > Why then are the threads assigned separate PIDs? This is a byproduct of how threads are implemented in the Linux kernel; they are just separate processes which share the same address map. The way Linux does it is simpler that some other OSes which have separate code to handle threads within a process vs processes themselves. > I was under the assumption > that PID stood for "Process Identifier". Correct. > (Perhaps "Posix thread IDentifier" > would be a better definition of the acronym) I was totally unaware that you > could assign process threads separate scheduling priorities / policies apart > from the parent process. I think this is even a requirement for POSIX. > Also, is it possible (within the context of programming) to assign threads > individual names to give an indication as to what the specific PID is doing, > or are thread PID names always named the same as the parent process? Not sure. > I'm sure these questions open up a whole can of worms dealing with the mess of > conforming modern programming concepts to an aging POSIX framework. What can of worms? What mess? Quite honestly I think POSIX is showing far less signs of age that many other far younger APIs (win32 I'm looking at you). Erik -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Java, the best argument for Smalltalk since C++." -- Frank Winkler _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
