Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: JKH Project: x86: pcb_ext Message-ID: <XFMail.010919102621.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20010919042928.F229F380A@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19-Sep-01 Peter Wemm wrote: > The more I think about it, the right place may be the kse, since that > outlives > the threads and is per-cpu unlike the process. > > Or, we just say "no pcb extensions for kse processes". Each thread would need its own TSS, and to preserve existing semantics, we would have to change the TSS of all threads for each TSS related syscall. In light of that, I vote in favor of "no TSS's for kse processes" since TSS's are used for very few things anyways. LDT's are another matter and can be moved w/o a problem. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010919102621.jhb>