Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:57:30 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Linux Threads patches available Message-ID: <3679D2AA.237C228A@whistle.com> References: <199812180345.TAA01088@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith wrote: > [...] > Thanks again for the summary; it's made the situation fairly clear. > From my first reading, a couple of questions: > > - Completeness would suggest that you should use vm_map_stack for the > "original" process stack as well as for subsequent thread stacks. > Is there a counter-argument? I was wondering this too. > > - Any reason (again for completeness) you couldn't add the remaining > syscalls you list in the sigsuspend.S change to the patch? probably only because they are unrelated. [...] > > - Any reason you don't want to become a committer? good one... :-) The only downside I see to this is the addition of 328 bytes to the size of the proc struct. when those structs were in the U area, they were swapable. mind you, how many processes are swapped entirely on most systems? julian (who wants to see this committed but wants a few backers) Maybe it should be 'conditionally' integrated.. (all dependent on #ifdef SHAREDSIGS or LINUX_CLONE) 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?3679D2AA.237C228A>