From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 25 3:39:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (peter1.yahoo.com [208.48.107.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E59F37BE07 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 03:39:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D802F1CE1; Thu, 25 May 2000 03:39:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Chuck Paterson Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Matthew Dillon , Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware In-Reply-To: Message from Chuck Paterson of "Thu, 25 May 2000 02:44:20 MDT." <200005250844.CAA19436@berserker.bsdi.com> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 03:39:10 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20000525103910.D802F1CE1@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chuck Paterson wrote: > > The good news is that the actual implementation of the > mutexs is machine dependent and can change wildly over different > architectures with no need for the callers to know. > > Chuck I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'd like to remind folks that we have an in-kernel linker that can probably help a bit. We can arrange to have either the SMP or UP versions of the mutex modules linked in depending on which type of system it is. A bit of work would be required to make this fly, but we have the infrastructure there. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message