From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 27 23:11: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5178415394 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:11:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA91393 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:11:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA13467 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:09:22 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199906280609.AAA13467@harmony.village.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: "restricted" kernel threads implementation from NetBSD via newconfig Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:09:22 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'd like to bring a kernel thread implementation, ported from NetBDS by the newconfig project, into the kernel. Who would like to review things before they go into the tree? I can see many benefits for having this in the tree, but very little downside. This should allow people to more easily port raid-frame from NetBSD if they desire. FYI, this is an outshoot of the porting of the newconfig code to new-bus. Each bridge controller has its own even thread to handle cards events in a sane manner. It is basically a stripped down pccardd in the kernel, but one that has a huge hint database. I'm not proposing, at this time, to bring it on. I just want to get the kthread stuff in as a separate issue. Comments? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message