From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 17 12:06:02 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8289A16A4CE; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by green.homeunix.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3HJ5xiY041132;
	Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org)
Message-Id: <200404171906.i3HJ5xiY041132@green.homeunix.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
	<200404171802.i3HI26T4026258@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 
From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:05:59 -0400
Sender: green@green.homeunix.org
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking) 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:06:02 -0000

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.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\