Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 03:16:34 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@freedomnet.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: (where are linux threads?) Re: pthreads question/problem... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812290305210.2148-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> In-Reply-To: <5058.914913846@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Doesn't it seem obvious to anyone other than myself that the current > > interest in porting Linux's 1-1 threads is a pretty good indication that > > people want 1-1 threads in FreeBSD? Is the only way we are going to get > > I think it seems more obvious that the set of people willing to talk > about more aggressive threading models and the people willing to > actually do the work don't often (enough) intersect or there would be > more tangible development effort going on in this area. > > Don't just gripe to us about how disillusioned you are over the fact > that santa clause was discovered to be a fake and your first sexual > experience didn't live up to its billing, that is merely extraneous > information and doesn't convey much more than "I'm really upset!", > something which won't get you much sympathy around here given that > we're not real big on maternal instincts around here. If the lack of > something in FreeBSD annoys you, fix it. Where do you think the > motivation to fix so much of what was previously broken in FreeBSD > came from? I may be mistaken, but you're both misunderstanding me. from reading recent posts on -current i could have sworn i saw that _NATIVE_ "linuxthreads" were now available to freebsd. I think you need to compile a kernel and world with: CFLAGS+= COMPAT_LINUX_THREADS to achive this, the only thing that seems to be missing is a FreeBSD userland interface to it. Is there any chance that this will become standard in FreeBSD? (the thread died off without mentioning if it will become default) what about userland interface? > > > end up CPU intensive or not. So, now rather than having a relatively clean > > all threads implementation, I'm being told that since it was decided that > > threads are *best used* for I/O intensive apps, we would have to add an > > Nothing was "decided" by any such executive committee. Don't take the > remarks of some developer expressing his personal preferences as > decrees from the pope - we don't have one, nor are things in FreeBSD > determined by decree. They're generally decreed by somebody picking > up a sword and screaming "CHARGE!", impressing enough people with > their bravery and general lunacy that folks start picking up their own > swords and running after them. That is how stuff happens, not through > impassioned speaches that make various unfavorable comparisons to > linux and threaten an imminent defection to same in every second > paragraph. Those sort of speaches do little more than convince your > audience that they're dealing with a major wanker who needs the facts > of life explained to him in a dark alley sometime, preferably with the > aid of power tools. :-) heh, settle down 'bro i've already had to apply asbestos patches to my copy of Pine because of the last flurry on -current :) "Capt'n she's breaking up, she can't take much more of this...." :) -Alfred > > - Jordan > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812290305210.2148-100000>