Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:08:11 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <dick@tar.com>, Jeremy Lea <reg@shale.csir.co.za>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using LinuxThreads Message-ID: <199901212108.FAA27978@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:22:17 PST." <Pine.BSF.3.95.990121121926.12406A-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: [..] > > > I just realised however, that if we make them go away we break > > > SMP right? > > > > No. I don't think the patches affect SMP one way or the other. > > If someone tries to run kernel threads of any kind (linuxthreads > > in emulation, linuxthread in FreeBSD native, any other kernel > > threads implementation that uses rfork with RFMEM) rfork will > > fail, with or without the patches (unless you apply Luoqi Chen's > > pmap patches). > > > > I see no reason the patches shouldn't work with SMP when rfork > > gets fixed, but I haven't tried it. > > ok send them and I'll commit > > julian Wait a day or two for the VM dust to settle otherwise there will be no telling which set of code is causing problems. The POSIX options probably need to go on with this or there isn't much point doing it since it's part of what the linux threads package calls. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901212108.FAA27978>