From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C5FC278.1979580C@strakt.com> From: Boyd Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Thread library References: <1ae0b0262b7b842b424abcf81dc0fd0f@plan9.bell-labs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:31:04 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4bd13544-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Russ Cox wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, you can't implement threadkill > completely on NT since I don't see how to send an interrupt to > another process. I'm pretty sure you can't. The best you can do is send it a message to _persuade_ it to pack it in. My theory is that the program loader, oops kernel, forcibly kills processes by ripping them out of memory and throwing away their kernel resources. The whole model is totally and utterly flawed. I guess you could have a thread manager thread that receives a threadkill messages and kills 'em. Such revolting hacks are often the only way to do it. Try writing rsh [remote shell] on NT. You can't select [WaitForMultipleObjects or whatever it's called] on sockets ... It's doable, but revolting.