From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Oct 1 16:19:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1D637B40E; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA88311; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:14:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: "David O'Brien" Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE next steps... In-Reply-To: <20011001144235.B97970@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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