From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 28 12:46: 9 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD8B37BCE3
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie@whistle.com)
Received: (from archie@localhost)
	by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26198;
	Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Message-Id: <200007281945.MAA26198@bubba.whistle.com>
Subject: Re: kevent()/kqueue() in a multithreaded environment
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007271246160.56534-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu> from
 Doug White at "Jul 27, 2000 02:08:43 pm"
To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Doug White writes:
> You normally wouldn't mix kqueue and threads; you'd use kqueue to
> *implement* threads. :-)
> 
> AFAIK kqueue hasn't been made threadsafe, you'll have to bug
> jlemon@freebsd.org about it. Patches gladly accepted :)

I may be just being stupid but I don't understand that last sentence.

I thought kqueue() and kevent() were system calls... how can they
not be thread safe?

-Archie

___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message