Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mtxinu!frk
From: frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: notification of thread death
Message-ID: <1131@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: 16 Feb 90 20:05:00 GMT
References: <371@kgw2.bwi.WEC.COM> <8ZqaNoK00hYPEpsEdz@cs.cmu.edu> <1126@mtxinu.UUCP> <AZqsmpm00hYPAyhWFT@cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski)
Distribution: usa
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 30

In article <AZqsmpm00hYPAyhWFT@cs.cmu.edu> Richard.Draves@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.mach: 15-Feb-90 Re: notification of thread
>.. Frank Korzeniewski@mtxin (2176)
>
>> Fine, but what about other ports that the thread had recieve rights for.
>> Don't these ports give the rights back to the owner/backup thread?
>> If not, this seems to be a lack of appropriate cleanup by cthreads/mach.
>
>
>Threads don't have receive rights.  Port rights are held by tasks.  What
>do you mean by owner/backup thread?  What ports are you worrying about
>here?
>

Ahhhh. Excuse me.  I was confusing the unix process model with mach
task/threads.  As you point out resources are owned by tasks not by
threads.  The rest of my comments are based on this misunderstanding
and are even less relavent.  Now that I think about it a little more,
I realize that if threads did own resources, there would be no difference
between threads and processes.  This would mean that there are problems
for which threads are appropriate, and those for which tasks (processes)
are appropriate.  This does point out to me that threads are not a
replacement for processes, as I had assumed.

Sorry that I may have confused the issue for others.

>
>Rich

Frank