Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!merch!cpe!tif
From: tif@cpe.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: pid rollover?
Message-ID: <132500009@cpe>
Date: 10 Feb 89 15:38:00 GMT
References: <697@root44.co.uk>
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:root44.co.uk:697:cpe:132500009:000:510
Nf-From: cpe.UUCP!tif    Feb 10 09:38:00 1989


Written  6:31 am  Feb  8, 1989 by root44.UUCP!aegl in cpe:comp.unix.xenix
>the pid to be the index into the proc table.  (and WOW, you could save
>2 bytes from the proc structure by not having a p_pid element at all!).
>What would break if you did this (do the big mainframes already do

At the very least, HDB-style pid-locking would be less useful since
a given PID is quite likely to have SOME process running.

			Paul Chamberlain
			Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp.
			{killer | texbell}!cpe!tif