From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <46fe3333e90c57a30a63f06f44946b0f@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402270859140.2563@ppc970.osdl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:03:56 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 00461f7e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Hint: you can't message-pass a hash table that describes 200 megabytes
> worth of filesystem names.
>
> Welcome to the real world, Neo.

You can. You can pass a pointer to it.
If you're in the mood for using locks, you can put a proc
in charge of your hash table, and avoid locks. If you're not,
you can use non-preemptive threads and avoid locks too.