From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 30 4:21:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0563215884 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:21:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04507 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:21:43 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id NAA69958 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:21:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E7F15884 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:20:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from vigrid.com (pm3-pt11.pcnet.net [206.105.29.85]) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) with ESMTP id HAA25672; Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:20:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3843C0DD.DD80682D@vigrid.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:19:41 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Revisitted.. Threads goals.? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer wrote: > > Peter made a valid point which is that maybe we should figure out > a waypoint between here and there, that gives us a working but > sub-optimal threads package of the order of the linux threads package, > that can be included in 4.0 > > We may have 2 whole months to get that done :-( Isn't Feature Freeze December 15th? That's only 2 weeks. > Also, Matt Dillon has been arguing strongly that point 8 (kernel) > and point 3(user) are non goals, in fact he wants the opposite. > He also argues that making an entity that groups KSE's on a scale smaller > than the entire process is a bad idea. I disagree but we haven't > decided anyting yet. He claims 'simplicity. I think that he may be sliding > back up teh other side of th ecurve by trying to simplify more than the > goals (many of which we are inherritting from Posix via the 3rd meta-goal) > allow. > > how would we move towards Peter's hope? and are there things we can do > that there is no argument about? I think that separating the proc > structure is agreed, but it is not needed for Linux threads.. I see you just committed a LinuxThreads port. Shouldn't that be sufficient until 4.1 comes out with some version of our native threads? Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message