From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 19 15:46:50 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA04836
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:46:50 -0700
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA04829
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:46:47 -0700
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA23918; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:46:20 -0700
From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199510192246.PAA23918@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: NetBSD/FreeBSD (pthreads)
To: cimaxp1!jb@werple.net.au (John Birrell)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: mira!sdsp.mc.xerox.com!leisner@werple.net.au, hackers@freebsd.org,
        jb@cimlogic.com.au
In-Reply-To: <199510192222.IAA02052@werple.net.au> from "John Birrell" at Oct 20, 95 08:25:25 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 379       
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'm curious about why you *need* kernel threads.

usually it's for several blocking IO streams..

> 
> If you end up trying to use the MIT threads, watch out! We ended up completely
> retructuring the code to a more sane (IMHO) implementation.
this is the stuff you ended up using right?
have you forwarded your changes back?

are you doing this under FreeBSD as well?

julian