Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:54:40 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: threads@freebsd.org, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <201112211854.40798.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <E6656282-8FD0-4C64-A2C9-BD10B832B18A@bsdimp.com> References: <Your message of "Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:48:12 GMT." <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> <4EF084A8.32369.B604AD16@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> <E6656282-8FD0-4C64-A2C9-BD10B832B18A@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 18:33:16 Warner Losh wrote: > On Dec 20, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Niall Douglas wrote: > > The job was NOT done half-arsed. If you had any experience of sitting > > on these committees you would know how much dedication and effort is > > put into standards, especially JTC1 SC22 subcommittees. Every single > > API in there has been studied and pored over at length across > > multiple years. > > > > Everything is the way it is for a good reason. If it doesn't make > > sense to you that's most likely because you're not half as > > experienced or clever as you think you are. If you really want to > > know why something is the way it is, all discussion regarding all > > points is documented in full. > > Incredible claims require incredible proof. The APIs speak for themselves: > they are half-assed (and the wrong half in some cases). To assert that > they are somehow clever and we're stupid requires that one walk through > the cleverness. The participants in this thread likely have a combined > century of implementation experience with threads. > > Perhaps you can point us to the archives where all this discussion is > available? > Hi, Absolute timeouts is no good idea! We should stick with kernel-ticks when possible :-) --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201112211854.40798.hselasky>