From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Nov 23 17:35:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA22161 for smp-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:35:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA22152; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:35:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611240135.RAA22152@freefall.freebsd.org> To: Martin Cracauer cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thread issues In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:24:49 +0100." <199611231924.UAA08217@knight.cons.org> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:35:45 -0800 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-smp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Having played with threads under NT, I must say that I find its APIs both clean and easy to use. I wonder if we should take a step back and consider what would be the best interface to supply for our users even if it vastly differs from a "conventional UNIX thread" implementation. We can always provide POSIX APIs on top of FreeBSD's native thread APIs. Threads and AIO are two features that the people doing embedded systems with FreeBSD really want. In most cases, they are interested in performance and time to market, not portability, so designing our own interfaces would not hinder their efforts. In fact, a cleaner, more logical set of APIs may reduce their TTM and make FreeBSD even more viable in this arena. -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================