Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991101144925.14475A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <199911011907.MAA18241@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > You and I are on the same track here. This is the kind of functionality > I would like to see, and I proposed something like that in an email to > the group. The only downsides to execption handling is that it often > makes your code a bit harder to read if you get really anal about > exception handling. :) > > > There are several situations where you really do want to abort threads > > in a kernel context (even those that are not explicitly sleeping) and > > whatever solution we devise should allow for it to occur. > > Agreed, but it needs to be a 'signal' or an 'exception' to the thread, > so the thread itself can unwind, rather than having it abort. > > That way the thread itself can clean up as it sees fit... What about being able to push and pop cleanup handlers in the kernel? It's not quite as elegant as exception handlers, but would it accomplish what you want? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.991101144925.14475A-100000>