Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:52:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not.
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011111175017.16646B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <20011111224919.B24623807@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> I believe it would be a lot easier to remove the p/td arguments later
> once we know that we dont need them, than to remove them now and
> discover later that we do need them and have to go back and figure it
> all out again.
>
> To answer Robert.. By all means be explicit about creds etc, but lets
> not get two different bikesheds^H^H^H^H^H^Hchanges mixed up together.
Well, my concern was really whether or not I should go ahead and commit
the if_ioctl changes to add a td argument, which scatter new thread
references all over the place, when adopting a 'curthread' philosophy
would make that a waste of time. I'll post the patches, once I've merged
in some recent changes, on Monday.
To be honest, I don't really mind either way, I was just interested in
getting a sense of the arguments {for, against} moving to
curthread/curproc.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services
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.NEB.3.96L.1011111175017.16646B-100000>