From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 22 3:40: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1B937B416; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:39:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAMBgvh11425; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:42:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200111221142.fAMBgvh11425@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: John Baldwin Cc: Steve Kargl , arch@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:22:09 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:42:57 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Perhaps if 'proc' is put under _KERNEL. Since proc embeds a kse, ksegroup, > and thread, it can't very easily be defined w/o including those definitions. #ifdef _KERNEL #define PROC_THREAD struct thread #else #define PROC_THREAD void #endif PROC_THREAD *p_thread; etc. You get my drift. Exposing something called "struct thread" is just stupid, guys. You ought to know better than this by know; at the very least it should have been k_thread. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message