From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue May 13 15:52:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA22217
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 1997 15:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from caipfs.rutgers.edu (root@caipfs.rutgers.edu [128.6.155.100])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA22190;
          Tue, 13 May 1997 15:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jenolan.caipgeneral (jenolan.rutgers.edu [128.6.111.5])
	by caipfs.rutgers.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA26466;
	Tue, 13 May 1997 18:52:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by jenolan.caipgeneral (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA00500; Tue, 13 May 1997 18:50:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:50:59 -0400
Message-Id: <199705132250.SAA00500@jenolan.caipgeneral>
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>
To: terry@lambert.org
CC: terry@lambert.org, Andrew.Gordon@net-tel.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
        current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199705131700.KAA10167@phaeton.artisoft.com> (message from Terry
	Lambert on Tue, 13 May 1997 10:00:42 -0700 (MST))
Subject: Re: PATCHES: NFS server locking support
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

   From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
   Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:00:42 -0700 (MST)

   > Why not put lockd into the kernel as a kernel thread and avoid all of
   > this overhead?  That's what we do and it works extremely well...

   Because FreeBSD does not have kernel threading, a FreeBSD kernel
   thread is nothing more than a process that enters/starts-in kernel
   space, and never leaves?

   BTW: "We"?  Who has an NFS lockd?

Linux.