Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:19:41 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Revisitted.. Threads goals.? Message-ID: <3843C0DD.DD80682D@vigrid.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911292207120.7902-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3843C0DD.DD80682D>