From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Oct 31 16:54:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4CE14C24 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:54:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23568 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:54:52 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA68626 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:54:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7D914C24 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:54:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07461; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:54:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13342; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:54:43 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:54:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199911010054.RAA13342@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Nate Williams , Julian Elischer , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads models and FreeBSD. In-Reply-To: <381CE369.C28FB9A3@newsguy.com> References: <199910312340.QAA12893@mt.sri.com> <381CE369.C28FB9A3@newsguy.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > 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