From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 15 12: 2: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E337137B428 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11881 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 20:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 15 Nov 2001 20:01:22 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:01:50 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not. Cc: Robert Watson , Cc: Robert Watson , Matthew Dillon , Alfred Perlstein , Greg Lehey , Bruce Evans , Peter Wemm , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 15-Nov-01 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > John Baldwin writes: >> Err, no. curthread doesn't even have a lock. Look at sys/proc.h. There >> are >> some fields we don't use any locks on, because we assume that only curthread >> messes with its own copy, or some such. > > Hmm, then you need to lock the entire process, don't you? Only for certain things. We don't actually lock the process unless we need to down inside of a syscall. > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message