From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 22 23:43:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C566115A49 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:43:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0DA1F49; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:40:51 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Luoqi Chen Cc: peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: flock + kernel threads bug In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:48:02 -0400." <199904221848.OAA06740@lor.watermarkgroup.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:40:51 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <19990423064055.6B0DA1F49@spinner.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Luoqi Chen wrote: > I've been thinking about a more drastic one, store the same PID in the > threads' proc structure. PID is no more than a name of a process in the > userland, and in userland we see all the threads as the same process. > I don't think we really need a thread id, the threads are anonymous. > Inside the kernel, the threads or processes are still named by their > (struct proc *) pointer, so there won't be any confusion. selwakeup() is keyed from pid, not 'struct proc *' and is rather dependent on these being unique... Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message