Re: Process vs. Threads

Hi, Can someone summarize the state of the thread changes in 2.4? A lot seemed to happen, but from what I gather, nothing user-visible yet. We have the concept of thread group now. A thread group will be created if you use the CLONE_THREAD flag from userspace. The task structures for the

Re: lost charaters -- this is becoming annoying!

Hi Tigran, PS. This only happens on this Dell latitude CPx (notice lost shift in Latitude?) H450GT. I have a Dell Latitude CPx as well and I keep losing caps lock keypresses. I'm running a 2.2.18 kernel. It's very annoying since I have control mapped to caps lock. I suspected that my

Re: [PATCH] exclusive wakeup for lock_buffer

--- linux/include/linux/locks.h.orig Mon Feb 19 23:16:50 2001 +++ linux/include/linux/locks.h Mon Feb 19 23:21:48 2001 @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ * lock buffers. */ extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *); +extern void __lock_buffer(struct buffer_head *); This doesn't match

Re: Process vs. Threads

Hi, > Can someone summarize the state of the thread changes in 2.4? > A lot seemed to happen, but from what I gather, nothing user-visible yet. We have the concept of thread group now. A thread group will be created if you use the CLONE_THREAD flag from userspace. The task structures for

Re: lost charaters -- this is becoming annoying!

Hi Tigran, > PS. This only happens on this Dell latitude CPx (notice lost shift in > Latitude?) H450GT. I have a Dell Latitude CPx as well and I keep losing caps lock keypresses. I'm running a 2.2.18 kernel. It's very annoying since I have control mapped to caps lock. I suspected that my

Re: [PATCH] exclusive wakeup for lock_buffer

> --- linux/include/linux/locks.h.orig Mon Feb 19 23:16:50 2001 > +++ linux/include/linux/locks.h Mon Feb 19 23:21:48 2001 > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > * lock buffers. > */ > extern void __wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *); > +extern void __lock_buffer(struct buffer_head *); This doesn't