Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:19:44 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303271818110.24399-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <16003.32780.950519.931661@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Daniel Eischen writes: > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > > Which means they are likely to change. I do not want to develop on > > > unstable APIs and unstable kernel code. kern_thr.c is 254 lines. I think > > > we can handle a little duplication. I'm not sure why the objection is so > > > strong. > > > > I don't see kse_create() changing since it takes a > > mailbox pointer as an argument and you can theoretically > > hang anything off the [versioned] mailbox. > > According to the 5-stable roadmap at > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/5-roadmap/major-issues.html > > KSE kernel and userland components must be functionality complete > by June 2003 in order to be included in the RELENG_5 branch. For > security and stability reasons, if KSE cannot be finished in time > then, by default, all KSE-specific syscalls should be modified to > return ENOSYS and all other KSE-specific interfaces disabled. This sounds like an argument to use the KSE syscalls :-) If libthr is based on KSE and it works, then you've accomplished the above. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10303271818110.24399-100000>