From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 20 17:52:22 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FCE106566B for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:52:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Lowell@Be-Well.Ilk.Org) Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.53]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DD58FC08 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6507 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2011 17:52:21 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 20 Jul 2011 17:52:21 -0000 Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.8]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BC62E0C0; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id EC34B39848; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:52:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Lars Eighner References: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:52:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Lars Eighner's message of "Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:04:06 -0500 (CDT)") Message-ID: <44zkk87sc2.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to add sio to 8.2 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:52:22 -0000 Lars Eighner writes: > I've come to the conclusion that I need sio to be able to use 8.x. > > Can it be as simple as just dropping the code from 7.x into the source > for 8.x and adding a line to the kernel configuration? > > Or would this be fraught with all kinds of deep traps? It might work, but it would certainly be bad for performance on multiprocessor systems. I think the Giant lock is still around, just not used. If it's actually been excised from the code, then you have no chance at all.