Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:23:21 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread Makefile src/lib/libpthread/test thr_create.cthr_private.h thr_sig.c thr_sigmask.c ... Message-ID: <3F189D89.1020704@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307182046560.9806-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307182046560.9806-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, David O'Brien wrote: > > >>On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 05:10:21PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>... >> >>>I'd like to see the emphasis put more on the <arch>s; if >>>they are going to be Tier-1, provide the necessary libkse >>>bits :-) >> >>Who are "the arches"? KSE is a new feature, so the responsibility is on >>the KSE developers to complete their implementation on all Tier-1 >>platforms. I've offered Alpha boxes to all the KSE developers and have >>had zero takers... (same for i386 SMP boxes... but that's another story) > > > I don't recall being offered an SMP box, but perhaps you're > talking about the kernel hackers (mostly David & Julian). > > Yes, KSE is relatively new, but it has been in the > tree for a while now. You can't expect the KSE guys > to be knowledgeable in all the archs. For someone > that is, though, it should be very easy. Adding support > for KSE really, really, pales in comparison to the > kernel MD bits. > > I think putting the onus on us for all the archs > is a little unfair. We are more than happy to do > some of the work and help guide others. > The expectation is not so much that you, David, Julian, etc will write the actual code, but that you all will make sure that the code gets written. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F189D89.1020704>