From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264630AbRFPOST>; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:18:19 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264633AbRFPOSJ>; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:18:09 -0400
Received: from 513.holly-springs.nc.us ([216.27.31.173]:36873 "EHLO
	513.holly-springs.nc.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264630AbRFPOR7>; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:17:59 -0400
Subject: Re: threading question
From: Michael Rothwell <rothwell@holly-springs.nc.us>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <E15Abr6-00057R-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <E15Abr6-00057R-00@the-village.bc.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.10 (Preview Release)
Date: 16 Jun 2001 10:16:49 -0400
Message-Id: <992701010.9390.4.camel@gromit>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 14 Jun 2001 19:28:32 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:

> Co-routines or better language choices are much more efficient ways to express
> the event handling problem.

Can you provide any info and/or examples of co-routines? I'm curious to
see a good example of co-routines' "betterness."

Thanks,

--
Michael Rothwell
rothwell@holly-springs.nc.us