From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec 22 10:04:23 2007
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9447D16A419;
	Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7605613C459;
	Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF0847231;
	Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:04:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:04:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200712220456.lBM4umH3027673@repoman.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20071222100304.F67327@fledge.watson.org>
References: <200712220456.lBM4umH3027673@repoman.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_thread.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:04:23 -0000


On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:

>  give thread0 the tid 100000 and bumpt the others to start at 100001

Thanks!  While this didn't appear to cause any specific runtime problems I was 
aware of, it was inconsistent, and with additional threads going under proc0, 
it might have lead to confusion in DDB where it wouldn't be possible to 
unambiguously differentiate proc0 from thread0.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge