Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:49 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <20030329042649.18B682A8BB@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20030327143259.I64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Scott Long wrote: > > > Once 5-STABLE happens, users of 5.x can no longer be guinea pigs for KSE > > > development. By keeping the 1:1 and M:N API's separate, KSE can > > > progress in 6-CURRENT until it is proven while still allowing MFC's to > > > 5-STABLE to happen without too much pain. > > > > That's kind of silly; we have other ways to keep API/ABI > > compatability and have used this for all other syscalls. > > The KSE and thread mailboxes even have version numbers > > in them. > > Which means they are likely to change. I do not want to develop on > unstable APIs and unstable kernel code. kern_thr.c is 254 lines. I think > we can handle a little duplication. I'm not sure why the objection is so > strong. I for one think they should use seperate syscalls. We shouldn't have designed-for-KSE mailboxes going anywhere near this stuff and it gives the KSE folks plenty of room to keep tweaking their data structures. Anyway, I can't wait to see how this works out. It is becoming a Big Deal at work, we're using the linuxthreads port + rfork() out of desperation. libthr can't possibly be any nastier than that. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030329042649.18B682A8BB>