From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel Message-ID: <20040301105948.C29577@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <7e3049782c9b96bdd8a5ba0caf4e4b38@plan9.escet.urjc.es> <4c9eb75468dd84f2f3ccdd91ac97f572@plan9.escet.urjc.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4c9eb75468dd84f2f3ccdd91ac97f572@plan9.escet.urjc.es>; from Fco.J.Ballesteros on Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:48:47AM +0100 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:59:48 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0658a300-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:48:47AM +0100, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote: > > I told him, but he then said that calling a function was also > message passing, which is not. Passing a fn pointer through > a channel, which IMHO he missed, of course is. IMHO, he should > read the source of acme. I did learn a lot by doing so (after decades > of doing concurrent programs). Surely message passing differs from pointer passing by the mere addition of synchronisation?! In which case I fail to see how Torvalds could consider himself a kernel designer and not recognise the chasm between them. ++L