Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:15:58 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: poll(2) Message-ID: <199612100115.MAA11043@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199612100020.QAA11620@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> from Jason Thorpe at "Dec 9, 96 04:20:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Thorpe wrote: > Just wanted to get tech-kern@netbsd.org on this thread, too :-) The "thread kernel" for a user-thread implementation (in libpthread or libc_r in FreeBSD-current) is in user space. *Nothing* in the "real kernel" is affected => tech-user@netbsd.org? 8-) The user-thread implementation just uses the best that the real kernel has to offer. That way, the implementation doesn't get in the way of a kernel thread implementation later on. > > "Discuss." :-) If NetBSD's kernel is moving towards everything being done in timespecs, then the best that the real kernel *should* offer would be a nanopoll syscall with a timespec argument. Then libc could provide wrappers for poll(2) and upoll(2). > Jason R. Thorpe thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Regards, -- John Birrell CIMlogic Pty Ltd jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org 119 Cecil Street Ph +61 3 9690 6900 South Melbourne Vic 3205 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Australia Mob +61 18 353 137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612100115.MAA11043>