Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpthread Makefile src/lib/libpthread/test sigsuspend_d.c src/lib/libpthread/thread thr_cancel.c thr_concurrency.c thr_nanosleep.c thr_private.h thr_sig.c thr_sigmask.c ...
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307182046560.9806-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030719001523.GA85201@dragon.nuxi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.

-- 
Dan Eischen



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10307182046560.9806-100000>