From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 31 20:55:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0255E15133 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:55:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03184 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:55:20 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id FAA70811 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 05:55:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8887514FEA for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:55:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id XAA27221; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:53:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:53:57 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199911010453.XAA27221@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com, nate@mt.sri.com Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, julian@whistle.com Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > No, I want to be able to have multiple threads in a single process > > be in kernel space. Only one can be running, but others can be > > blocked. > > Agreed. My point is that if we allow multiple threads in a single > process in the kernel space, it's alot worse than the present tsleep > issues.... Perhaps I haven't thought this through enough, but why? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message