Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:05:59 -0400 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking) Message-ID: <200404171906.i3HJ5xiY041132@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200404171802.i3HI26T4026258@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > <<On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:13:13 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> said: > > > Contrived. Let's see one. There won't be any -- they will be using > > threads, not kqueues, because threads work on more than one system. > > Except, of course, that the thread library may use kqueue internally. Then we don't do that. > > In case > > you didn't notice, kqueues have been horribly broken for years now > > For values of ``horribly broken'' apparently equal to ``not understood > by green''. For values of ``horribly broken'' apparently equal to ``does not respect any locking constraints,'' ``does not have semantics which support the idea of a non-spl system,'' and ones like that, yeah. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404171906.i3HJ5xiY041132>