Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:02:02 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <199911012002.NAA18597@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991101144925.14475A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <199911011907.MAA18241@mt.sri.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.991101144925.14475A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > You and I are on the same track here. This is the kind of functionality > > I would like to see, and I proposed something like that in an email to > > the group. The only downsides to execption handling is that it often > > makes your code a bit harder to read if you get really anal about > > exception handling. :) > > > > > There are several situations where you really do want to abort threads > > > in a kernel context (even those that are not explicitly sleeping) and > > > whatever solution we devise should allow for it to occur. > > > > Agreed, but it needs to be a 'signal' or an 'exception' to the thread, > > so the thread itself can unwind, rather than having it abort. > > > > That way the thread itself can clean up as it sees fit... > > What about being able to push and pop cleanup handlers in the > kernel? It's not quite as elegant as exception handlers, but > would it accomplish what you want? I think the complexity would be much greater, but maybe I don't understand fully what you are saying. Can you give a simple code example? Nate 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?199911012002.NAA18597>