Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:23:46 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it time yet? [was Re: Weak symbols] Message-ID: <20000821182346.L4854@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000821200529.26995A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 08:46:44PM -0400 References: <20000821175359.C26324@hamlet.nectar.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000821200529.26995A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> [000821 17:47] wrote: > > When we want to (someday) build libpthread, it will have to be linkable > with libc. If we wanted the threads library to be able to catch internal > calls to _read(), then _read() can't be the actual system call. This > should not be a problem with a "scheduler activations"-based threads > library (we shouldn't have to wrap potentially blocking syscalls). I'd > like to make this assumption, but wouldn't rule out the possibility of > having to override a few library/system calls from libpthread. If libpthread could try to use a kqueue mechanism for sockets/pipes/fifo and only fall back to scheduler activations for disk IO we'd be in good shape. -Alfred 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?20000821182346.L4854>