From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Dec 17 14:08:54 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA24906
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:08:54 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24901
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:08:52 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com)
Received: (from luoqi@localhost)
	by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17346;
	Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:08:43 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from luoqi)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:08:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>
Message-Id: <199812172208.RAA17346@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
To: julian@whistle.com, mike@smith.net.au
Subject: Re: Linux Threads patches available
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, lists@tar.com, nate@mt.sri.com
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> As I said in other mail. This may not be perfect but if we don't 
> make a start on threads, we'll never get to the end.. This seems like
> a fair place to start. I don't see that implimenting it would be
> detrimental to the existing system..
> 
I agree. There have been much talking about kernel threads, but
nobody actually works on it. I say it's time to get our hands dirty.

> I would vote for an inclusion to allow others to start experimenting
> with linux-threads based software,
> (note there is now a linux-threads based java JVM.)
> 
> thoughts all?
> 
4.0-KTHREAD branch?

> julian
> 

-lq

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message