From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 29 09:14:04 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2000716A41C
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:14:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net
	[69.17.117.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA5943D4C
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:14:03 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (qmail 20266 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2005 09:14:03 -0000
Received: from server.baldwin.cx ([216.27.160.63])
	(envelope-sender <jhb@FreeBSD.org>)
	by mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA
	encrypted SMTP
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; 29 Jun 2005 09:14:03 -0000
Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (zion.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.7])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j5T9DpI0007252;
	Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:13:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org)
From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To: Pablo Mora <fbsd.hackers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:01:30 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
References: <a9e342b5050626200472f78ea5@mail.gmail.com>
	<200506271318.36748.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
	<a9e342b5050628165829056922@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a9e342b5050628165829056922@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200506290501.31301.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed 
	version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: problem handling POSIX thread on FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:14:04 -0000

On Tuesday 28 June 2005 07:58 pm, Pablo Mora wrote:
> Ok, I understand, but by being threads POSIX should be executed of the
> same one in any type of S.OR?

Not sure I understand the question.  What do you mean by S.O?  Are you sayi=
ng=20
that since the threads are POSIX, that you would expect the program to act=
=20
the same on all Operating Systems?  That's not an entirely safe assumption =
to=20
make in that POSIX only guarantees that things like mutexes work (and it=20
specifically states that you have to unlock a mutex in the same thread you=
=20
locked it, what you were doing would result in undefined behavior).  POSIX=
=20
doesn't make any guarantees about how threads are scheduled with respect to=
=20
one another.

=2D-=20
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> =A0<>< =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =A0=3D =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org