Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 19:26:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com, newton@internode.com.au Cc: dick@tar.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, luoqi@watermarkgroup.com, peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au Subject: Re: flock + kernel threads bug Message-ID: <199904222326.TAA21462@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Newton wrote: > > You still have thread IDs in userland, but you now add: > > _lwp_kill, _lwp_setschedparam, etc, > > system calls to control the kernel threads. Or maybe one big > > _lwp_control... > > If you make the BSD API the same as the SysVR4 API it'll make emulating > it really easy :-) > > lwp_info > lwp_sema_wait > lwp_sema_post > lwp_sema_trywait > lwp_create > lwp_exit > lwp_suspend > lwp_continue > lwp_kill > lwp_self > lwp_getprivate > lwp_setprivate > lwp_wait > lwp_mutex_unlock > lwp_mutex_lock > lwp_cond_wait > lwp_cond_signal > lwp_cond_broadcast > lwp_sigredirect > lwp_alarm Seems like a good idea to me. But are these all system calls, or are some library routines? Having lwp_self be a system call doesn't seem optimal. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904222326.TAA21462>