From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 1 11:59:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D65A14FF7 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:59:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07036 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:27 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA74862 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1AA152F2; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:56:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id OAA15599; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:55:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Nate Williams Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , Nate Williams , Julian Elischer , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. In-Reply-To: <199911011907.MAA18241@mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > You and I are on the same track here. This is the kind of functionality > I would like to see, and I proposed something like that in an email to > the group. The only downsides to execption handling is that it often > makes your code a bit harder to read if you get really anal about > exception handling. :) > > > There are several situations where you really do want to abort threads > > in a kernel context (even those that are not explicitly sleeping) and > > whatever solution we devise should allow for it to occur. > > Agreed, but it needs to be a 'signal' or an 'exception' to the thread, > so the thread itself can unwind, rather than having it abort. > > That way the thread itself can clean up as it sees fit... What about being able to push and pop cleanup handlers in the kernel? It's not quite as elegant as exception handlers, but would it accomplish what you want? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message