From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 28 19:44:44 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EE7AD5; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FD5AB6; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mbp3.pixel8networks.com (50-196-156-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.196.156.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s2SJif6M022821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:44:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <5335D126.7040904@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:44:38 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Torek , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, kib@freebsd.org Subject: Re: slight problem with r254457 (kthread_add fix) References: <201403280932.s2S9W5s3073181@elf.torek.net> In-Reply-To: <201403280932.s2S9W5s3073181@elf.torek.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:44:44 -0000 On 3/28/14, 2:32 AM, Chris Torek wrote: > (Overall, I like the "make MD code clean things up" method > better. Depending on thread0 state is pretty hacky. It's > just more work to check everything.) > > (I remember when someone, I think it may have been Mike Karels, > shuffled all the members of "struct proc" around so that we could > use the bcopy-some, bzero-some method to speed up fork(). It's > a hack too, but it's a nice one, and it's still in there, in > modified form. :-) ) yes I kept that when I made the separate thread structure. both the thread and process structures do the same thing.. > > Chris >