Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:54:43 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. Message-ID: <199911010054.RAA13342@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <381CE369.C28FB9A3@newsguy.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311156210.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910311201120.8816-100000@home.elischer.org> <199910312340.QAA12893@mt.sri.com> <381CE369.C28FB9A3@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 3/ Inability of one thread to block aother thread unless they are > > > intentionally synchronising. > > > > I think this can be dropped, since it's both confusing and almost > > contradictory. There is no such way to 'block' a regular process, > > although one can stop it in Unix, so the issue of blocking implies a > > blocking on something, which is allowed. > > > > > 10/ your ideas here. Note, you an also suggest that I remove an idea. > > > > The ability for a process to have multiple threads active in the kernel > > (system calls) without stopping the process the threads are busy in. > > This is a subset of the one you think can be dropped. :-) Maybe it > should rather be reworded? I guess 'inability' implies that we don't to allow another process to effect another thread. The double negative is what confuses me. :) Nate 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?199911010054.RAA13342>