Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:26:21 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "Norbert Koch" <nkoch@demig.de> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strawman proposal: making libthr default thread implementation? Message-ID: <b1fa29170607100126r5e53128bif26b38b4fe4e232a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44AD01C8.2040704@demig.de> References: <20060703101554.Q26325@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607030744030.5823@sea.ntplx.net> <200607032020.10993.davidxu@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0607060801400.23073@sea.ntplx.net> <44AD01C8.2040704@demig.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there any reason that exporting the process real time scheduling
functionality via the pthread api through libthr would not suffice?
-Kip
On 7/6/06, Norbert Koch <nkoch@demig.de> wrote:
> > I don't need hard real-time, but would like to be able to use
> > FreeBSD for soft real-time.
>
> me too.
>
> Norbert Koch
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170607100126r5e53128bif26b38b4fe4e232a>