Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:42:17 -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 Message-ID: <200211270742.XAA57750@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
debug5.0problems In-Reply-To: <3DE46776.27DF0FD@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211262330290.57127-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > 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.. > > Not confusing at all. The only issue is references to the > connection structure caches proc, which uses the first thread > on the cached proc; otherwise, it uses the thread that was > passed in. Where does the passed in thread come from? Generally don't use a thread pointer other than yourself unless you have a lock on the proc structure, or the schedlock. Certainly never store it anywhere.. Particularly anywhere that may persist while you sleep in any way. -exception.. kernel threads- .. they are persistant. 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?200211270742.XAA57750>