Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:15:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Chris Csanady <cc@137.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rfork patch, please comment Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910290314400.7724-100000@home.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <38196E32.BD1F51CD@ameslab.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
yes that's the one.. it's easier to understand when you have the diagrams and he's here explaining them.. On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Chris Csanady wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > I know I've been a fan of using rfork for native threads, > > (and all the support that we need for a linuxthreads is already there > > (see the linuxthread PORT to freebsd)). But I was speakin gwith terry the > > other day and he managed to convince me that there is an even better way > > that we could do this. > > > > It's really quite elegant. > > Were you reffering to the use of async call gates, in conjunction with a > user space call conversion scheduler? > > I have read many of Terry's posts regarding this type of thing, and it > seems quite brilliant. Honestly, I would be quite disappointed if we > went with a threading solution such as linux provides. (Or any of the > other typical solutions.) > > Chris > 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9910290314400.7724-100000>