From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar 28 20:26:49 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9847E37B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4166643FA3
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:49 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 18B682A8BB; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:49 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030327143259.I64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> 
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:26:49 -0800
From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Message-Id: <20030329042649.18B682A8BB@canning.wemm.org>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com>
cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 04:26:51 -0000

Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Scott Long wrote:
> > > Once 5-STABLE happens, users of 5.x can no longer be guinea pigs for KSE
> > > development.  By keeping the 1:1 and M:N API's separate, KSE can
> > > progress in 6-CURRENT until it is proven while still allowing MFC's to
> > > 5-STABLE to happen without too much pain.
> >
> > That's kind of silly; we have other ways to keep API/ABI
> > compatability and have used this for all other syscalls.
> > The KSE and thread mailboxes even have version numbers
> > in them.
> 
> Which means they are likely to change.  I do not want to develop on
> unstable APIs and unstable kernel code.  kern_thr.c is 254 lines.  I think
> we can handle a little duplication.  I'm not sure why the objection is so
> strong.

I for one think they should use seperate syscalls.  We shouldn't have
designed-for-KSE mailboxes going anywhere near this stuff and it gives the
KSE folks plenty of room to keep tweaking their data structures. 

Anyway, I can't wait to see how this works out.  It is becoming a Big Deal
at work, we're using the linuxthreads port + rfork() out of desperation.
libthr can't possibly be any nastier than that.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5