From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 28 13:14:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633CA37B5F8 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id QAA09241; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:13:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: Archie Cobbs Cc: Doug White , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kevent()/kqueue() in a multithreaded environment In-Reply-To: <200007281945.MAA26198@bubba.whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Doug White writes: > > You normally wouldn't mix kqueue and threads; you'd use kqueue to > > *implement* threads. :-) > > > > AFAIK kqueue hasn't been made threadsafe, you'll have to bug > > jlemon@freebsd.org about it. Patches gladly accepted :) > > I may be just being stupid but I don't understand that last sentence. > > I thought kqueue() and kevent() were system calls... how can they > not be thread safe? They really mean "wrapped by the threads library" so that kqueue doesn't block other threads from running. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message