Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:14:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE next steps... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0110011708260.87441-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20011001144235.B97970@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:24:13AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > /* Need one of these per KSE. */
> > struct ks_mailbox {
>
> What does "ks_" stand for?
basically kse, but 'kse' structures are internel to the kernel.
I'm toying with calling it kse_mailbox.
>
>
> > int new_kse(struct ks_mailbox *mbox, int new_group); /* add a new KSE */
> > /* maybe in a new kse group */
>
> Does this replace kse_init() in the paper?
basically thre are a number of things that need to be done to get
a process off and running in KSE mode. I'm leaning towards packaging
them in a slightly different set of syscalls to thiose in the paper,
even though all the same steps need to be done by the time that
we're finished..
>
> > maybe reversing the sycall names...
> > kse_new(), kse_yield(), kse_wake(), kse_exit(), thread_abort()
>
> That would seem to better follow the convention of the paper...
yes..
>
> --
> -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0110011708260.87441-100000>