Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:21:51 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] Searching for users of netncp and nwfs to help debug5.0 problems Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211262218120.57127-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <3DE434BA.8FDF00D3@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Uh, how exactly is that less obnoxious, given it's the same code > with a different name and an obnoxious inline instead of a macro? > 8-). it's shorter .. > > > > You can always get from a thread to a single process but the reverse > > always presents the question "which thread?". This question can only be > > answered with external information or if you know there is only one > > thread at this moment. > > The answer is that "the code doesn't care what thread"; it would > prefer to not have to think in terms of threads at all, but if > you want to force it to, then it's going to think in terms of > "blocking contexts for the benefit of FreeBSD code it calls", > and nothing else. Hense the confusion as to whether to use a thread or a proc.. > > Did you want me to update the patch to use your FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC > macro and resend it? you could but the fact that FIRST_THREAD_IN_PROC() is used indicates that the whole thing is broken anyway. Your edits are mostly mechanical and don't actually solve the problem. To do that you probably need to actually rewrite some of it I think. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211262218120.57127-100000>