From owner-freebsd-arch Sun May 21 17: 6:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from urban.iinet.net.au (urban.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.231]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F7D37B98F; Sun, 21 May 2000 17:06:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from muzak.iinet.net.au (muzak.iinet.net.au [203.59.24.237]) by urban.iinet.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10049; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:06:04 +0800 Received: from jules.elischer.org (reggae-09-5.nv.iinet.net.au [203.59.67.5]) by muzak.iinet.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24655; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:05:53 +0800 Message-ID: <39287950.167EB0E7@elischer.org> Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 17:03:28 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Smith Cc: Chuck Paterson , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD* mutex summary References: <200005191923.MAA09426@mass.cdrom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith wrote: > > Given the recent exercise over the proposed kernel thread architecture, > where after much discussion and the invention of a great deal of new > terminology we basically reinvented scheduler activations (described in a > 10 year old paper), I think that cleaving to existing terminology is > probably a good idea. > I didn't use the existing terminology deliberatly so that we wouldn't get preconcieved notions of how various components would behave. The aim was that when we had narrowed down what we wanted, we'd figure out what 'normal' nomenclature would best fit. This in fact happenned. If you ask jason, we are basically now using the terms from the SA paper. -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ---> X_.---._/ presently in: Perth v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message