Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:04:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dyson@freebsd.org Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FYI: regarding our rfork(2) Message-ID: <199709191604.KAA19167@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199709190610.BAA00804@dyson.iquest.net> References: <199709190518.XAA16454@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199709190610.BAA00804@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John S. Dyson writes: [ New shared everything call being added ] I wrote: > > it seems that sharing the stack > > is asking for nothing but trouble. John responds: > I don't disagree with what you are saying, however, we need to be able > to have full access to the stacks in every thread. Of course, we would > be wise to create guard page(s) between stacks. Why do we need to have access to the stack? Is it *only* for the thread 'kernel' that runs in user-land that does the 'context-switching' between the threads, or will each thread have access to another thread's stack. I can definitely see the need for the former, but *NOT* the latter. The great strength about Unix is that another 'process' can'tt muck with another 'processes' easily, and with threads I'd like to see this taken to whatever extreme as possible given the constraints of implementation. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709191604.KAA19167>