Date: Fri, 18 Dec 98 09:06:56 -0600 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> To: "Mike Smith" <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Julian Elischer" <julian@whistle.com> Subject: Re: Linux Threads patches available Message-ID: <199812181506.JAA10246@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:45:01 -0800, 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? Not that I know of. I coded the option as part of my initial debugging. I didn't want the original process stack to use the new code until I could try it out elsewhere. > > - Any reason (again for completeness) you couldn't add the remaining > syscalls you list in the sigsuspend.S change to the patch? No. I just haven't done the patches yet. They could easily be added later too. > - Any guesses at Alpha-related issues? No. I don't have an alpha machine and didn't really look. > >And one finally, presuming you're interested in pursuing this sort of >thing further (we'd like that I expect): > > - Any reason you don't want to become a committer? Learning how to really use cvs? :) Actually, the idea scares me a little. 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?199812181506.JAA10246>